Oral
Answers to
Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Political Parties: Loans and Donations

Layla Moran: For what reasons the decision was made to publish information about loans and donations given to Northern Ireland political parties dating back to July 2017 rather than 2014.

Karen Bradley: The recent publication by the Electoral Commission of donations and loans data for Northern Ireland parties is a positive step that should be welcomed by the whole House. The decision to backdate transparency was taken on the basis of broad support from the majority of political parties in Northern Ireland.

Layla Moran: It has recently been revealed that a portion of the largest ever political donation given to a party in Northern Ireland was spent on services linked to Cambridge Analytica. In the light of that, should not the Secretary of State backdate transparency regulations to 2014 so that we can finally have full disclosure about where that cash came from?

Karen Bradley: As I say, the decision to backdate to July 2017 was taken due to the broad support of the majority of parties in Northern Ireland. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), took time to consult the parties, and July 2017 was the date that they wished to start the transparency from.

Bob Stewart: I think that my right hon. Friend has already answered the question I wanted to ask: did all the parties agree not to take it back to 2014?

Karen Bradley: As I say, my predecessor consulted all the parties, and this position was supported by the broad majority of them.

Gavin Robinson: The Secretary of State will be able to confirm that even if the regulations did go back to 2014, no information would be published  that has not already been published. Will she also confirm that there is a disparity when there is no mention in this Chamber or elsewhere of the dark money received by Northern Ireland parties from foreign jurisdictions? This is the only place where that is allowed to occur, and it should stop.

Karen Bradley: I firmly believe that transparency is the important thing that we have here. We should all know where money is coming from, and I understand the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very interested to hear the Secretary of State’s explanation of why the Northern Ireland Office deliberately and wilfully ignored the advice and recommendations of the Electoral Commission that the publication of donations to political parties in Northern Ireland should be backdated to 2014, not 2017.

Karen Bradley: There was no wilful ignoring or anything else. My predecessor consulted all the parties in Northern Ireland and there was broad support for July 2017.

Deidre Brock: We know about one questionable donation that was channelled from Scotland through the Democratic Unionist party to be used in the Brexit referendum. People are rightly asking what the original source of that money was and whether there are others that we do not know about. If the Secretary of State will not consider revising the recent decision to limit transparency by taking it back to 2014, will she bring forward legislation to allow the individual parties to instruct the Electoral Commission to reveal their donation data?

Karen Bradley: As I have said, we are keen to ensure that there is transparency, but the question the hon. Lady asks is a matter for political parties themselves, not the Government.

Leaving the EU: Discussions with Political Parties

Michelle Donelan: What recent discussions she has had with Northern Ireland political parties on the UK leaving the EU.

Alex Chalk: What recent discussions she has had with Northern Ireland political parties on the UK leaving the EU.

Shailesh Vara: The Secretary of State and I have regular conversations with the Northern Ireland political parties on a range of issues. This includes matters relating to the UK’s departure from the European Union. As we have said repeatedly, these conversations are no replacement for a fully functioning, locally elected and democratically accountable Executive. That is what the people of Northern Ireland need, and that is what we are focused on.

Michelle Donelan: Does my hon. Friend agree that as we leave the EU, it is essential that current levels of security and co-operation between the UK and Ireland, which are so important in the fight against terrorism, are maintained and enhanced?

Shailesh Vara: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. All parties have been clear that there will not be any disruption to north-south security co-operation when it comes to policing and tackling the terrorist threat. I applaud the incredible work done by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda to keep us safe. That will not change after our EU exit.

Alex Chalk: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that as the UK, including Northern Ireland, leaves the EU, this Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement remains steadfast?

Shailesh Vara: Yes. I can categorically provide my hon. Friend with the commitment that he seeks. Our negotiating strategy puts our support for the Belfast agreement at the heart of our approach to the Northern Ireland-Ireland dialogue. As the Prime Minister and others have said on numerous occasions, we will continue to abide by the UK’s commitments in the Belfast agreement.

Nigel Dodds: Given the meeting on Monday between the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Michel Barnier, will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government’s clear position that the so-called backstop arrangement proposed by the EU Commission is something that no British Prime Minister or Government could ever agree to?

Shailesh Vara: The Prime Minister has made her views absolutely clear on that. Our country’s economic and constitutional integrity will not be harmed.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Minister for debunking the notion that, as a result of the transition arrangements, somehow the Government have reneged on that pledge, and for confirming that the Government remain firmly committed to the constitutional, political and economic integrity of the UK. Will he ensure that industries such as the Northern Ireland fishing industry are protected after we leave the EU, and that we will take back control of our territorial waters, including our rights for our fishermen?

Shailesh Vara: The right hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. I can confirm that the agreement reached in December in the joint report remains, and that Britain will do all that it can to ensure that all our industries, particularly fisheries, are maintained, and that our fishermen and the industry are well looked after.

Owen Smith: I am sure that one issue the Minister and the Secretary of State will have discussed with the political parties in Northern Ireland is the problems they see with a hard border returning in Ireland. What are those problems and what does the Minister suggest that we do to avoid them?

Shailesh Vara: The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and many others have made it absolutely clear that there will be no hard border.

Owen Smith: That is not much of an answer. The Government should acknowledge that the parties all think that there would be problems with a hard border, as do the Chief Constable, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Irish Government and many Conservative  Members. Should he not therefore acknowledge the problems and tell the House that the only way to avoid a hard border is for us to stay within the customs union and the single market?

Shailesh Vara: The people of Britain—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—collectively agreed to leave the single market and customs union, and that will be the case. As for the border, the December joint report made it absolutely clear that there will be no physical infrastructure and no hard border. There will be a frictionless border, and that is what is being negotiated and discussed.

Leaving the EU: Cross-border Trade

Carol Monaghan: What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

Gavin Newlands: What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

Peter Grant: What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

Tommy Sheppard: What recent discussions she has had with the Irish Government on cross-border trade after the UK leaves the EU.

Karen Bradley: I have regular conversations with the Irish Government. We both recognise the importance of the trade that takes place across the island of Ireland, which is worth £4 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. Equally, Great Britain markets are fundamental to Northern Ireland, with sales worth some £14.6 billion. As the Prime Minister reinforced in her Mansion House speech, we are committed to protecting both these vital markets.

Carol Monaghan: The Tánaiste told the Dáil yesterday that there would be no formal withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK if the Irish border issue was not resolved. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), has already said this morning that there will be no hard border, but will the Secretary of State explain how that will come about?

Karen Bradley: I do not think that the hon. Lady has said anything that is news to anybody. We are committed to the agreement we made in the joint report, and to the Belfast agreement and all that it stands for. We will ensure that there is no new physical infrastructure at the border and that there is frictionless trade.

Gavin Newlands: Simon Coveney also told the Dáil yesterday that the UK Government had provided a cast-iron guarantee that there would be no physical infrastructure, checks or controls at the border post Brexit. Will the Secretary of State confirm this—yes  or no?

Karen Bradley: I think that I just answered that question. There will be frictionless trade and movement at the border, and no new physical infrastructure.

Peter Grant: Last week, the Prime Minister spoke quite favourably about the “Smart Border 2.0” report from Dr Lars Karlsson. Yesterday, in evidence to the Brexit Committee, Dr Karlsson confirmed that the report was not tailored to the needs of Ireland and that it was incompatible with the December agreement that there would be no hard border in Ireland. Can the Government confirm that Dr Karlsson’s report will not form the basis of any future negotiations or agreement with the EU?

Karen Bradley: I confess that I am not familiar with that particular report. I will look into it.

Tommy Sheppard: Yesterday the Irish Foreign Minister suggested that the EU-UK transition arrangements could be extended beyond 2020 if better arrangements were not in place for the Irish border. Do the problems with dealing with the border mean that the UK could stay in the single market, the customs union and the common fisheries policy for longer, but without having any say?

Karen Bradley: I presume that the hon. Gentleman wrote his question before the announcement in Brussels by Michel Barnier and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The transitional arrangements will end in December 2020. The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and leaving the European Union means leaving the single market and the customs union—that is what we will do.

Andrew Murrison: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with the Irish Government. They did not want Brexit, and there are lots of risks for Ireland and no upside. Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless impress on her interlocutors in Dublin that the option presented in the draft withdrawal agreement is wholly unacceptable, and that they should work with us to ensure that option 1 in the December joint report goes ahead?

Karen Bradley: Both the UK Government and the Irish Government have stated that they would like to address the issue of the Irish border through the overall UK-EU relationship, as set out in option 1 in the joint report.

Bob Blackman: A competitive free trade deal between the United Kingdom and the European Union is clearly in the interests of both Northern Ireland and the Republic. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take the opportunity to suggest to the Taoiseach and others that it is in their interests to put pressure on the European Union to negotiate just that deal?

Karen Bradley: I would sum it up by saying that this is either a win-win or a lose-lose; there is no win-lose option whereby one side loses and the other wins. We will all benefit if we secure free trade arrangements and deal with the Irish border through the overall UK-EU relationship.

David Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend share my confidence that we will find a satisfactory solution to such trade issues in the negotiations before we leave the EU?

Karen Bradley: I do share my right hon. Friend’s optimism. I believe that we can negotiate a deal that works for all sides.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Secretary of State think that it would be a good idea to ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and Mr Barnier to come to the border—not for a press conference, but for a full day—to see the hundreds upon hundreds of crossing points and to debunk the nonsense and myth of a hard border, which would be irrelevant and impossible to enforce?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There are more crossing points in the 310 miles of land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic than there are on the whole of the eastern land border between the European Union and non-member states. However, I think that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that both Mr Barnier, who was working in the European Commission at the time of the Belfast agreement, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union are very familiar with that border.

Steve Pound: Now that spring has come and there is a lightness and warmth in the air, may the equinoctial optimism extend to all politicians in Northern Ireland!
I know that the Secretary of State is well aware of the important role played by the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, particularly during the previous period of direct rule, when there were 18 meetings between 1999 and 2007. With no devolution, and with the horrors of Brexit looming ever larger, what plans does she have to reconvene the BIIGC, and when and where will it be reconvened?

Karen Bradley: It seems ironic that on the day when there are exactly 12 hours of daylight, we have scheduled 12 hours of programmed time in which to debate Northern Ireland legislation.

Steve Pound: Not enough.

Karen Bradley: It may well not be enough; it will depend on how the shadow Secretary of State feels.
I regularly discuss with both the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach issues relating to our commitments in the Belfast agreement, and I continue to reflect on those matters.

John Bercow: I am bound to say that I am a little disappointed that there was a less than fully attentive audience for the legendary thespian performance of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), to which many of us have become accustomed over the last two decades, but there are always other occasions on which people can listen more closely—and should.

Steve Pound: Shall I do it again?

John Bercow: Another time. Let us keep it for the long summer evenings that lie ahead. I call Tom Pursglove.

Tom Pursglove: How do you follow that, Mr Speaker?

Leaving the EU: The Economy

Tom Pursglove: What steps the Government are taking to identify opportunities to strengthen Northern Ireland’s economy as the UK leaves the EU.

Shailesh Vara: I am not even going to try to follow that.
The Government are committed to building a stronger economy fit for the future right across the United Kingdom. That is clear from our industrial strategy and the Chancellor’s spring statement, where we continue to identify further opportunities for investment in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, however, a key requirement for stronger growth is political stability. That is why it is essential that a restored Executive are in place to take forward strategic decisions to deliver for Northern Ireland’s economy.

Tom Pursglove: Tayto has operations not only in Corby, but in Northern Ireland, and it is very good news that in recent times the operation has expanded considerably. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that such UK-wide manufacturing industries continue to grow and prosper?

Shailesh Vara: Tayto Group is the third largest snack manufacturer in the UK. It employs some 1,500 people right across the country—from Tandragee to Corby, and from Scunthorpe to Devon—and is one of the many success stories for growth. Through our industrial strategy, we are creating conditions in which successful businesses such as Tayto Group can thrive, helping them to invest in the future of our nation. We are shaping our business environment to take on the challenges and opportunities of new technologies and new ways of doing business, especially as we leave the EU, and to develop new trade relationships and expand our global trade networks.

Geraint Davies: The Institute of Export and International Trade says that if Northern Ireland is not in the single market or customs union, it will face 350 million new product codes. How many tens of thousands of administrators would Northern Ireland need to continue its current trade, let alone expand it?

Shailesh Vara: I can rebut such pessimistic claims with actual fact. The employment figures that we will publish this morning say that there are 66,000 more jobs now than in 2010, with 15,000 of them created in the last year. Since 2010 we have 12,300 new businesses.

Laurence Robertson: When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, this House will no longer be prohibited from reducing the rate of corporation tax for Northern Ireland. If the institutions are not up and running by that time, would the Minister consider taking that step?

Shailesh Vara: We very much hope that the devolved Assembly will be up and running, because it is for the Assembly to take the decision of reducing corporation tax. We are very committed to it doing that on the basis that it can show sustainable finances.

Emma Little Pengelly: Despite the ongoing political situation, Northern Ireland has had a very positive business environment this year, particularly in relation to foreign direct investment. Will the Minister consider establishing a formal and regular business forum to include Invest NI, and organisations and local businesses in Northern Ireland, to ensure that they can maximise opportunities that arise from the UK leaving the EU?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady makes a good point. I have just been assured by my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary that he would be happy to participate in such a venture.

Police Recruitment and Overtime

Jim Shannon: If she will hold discussions with the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on recruiting more officers and reducing its overtime budget.

Shailesh Vara: Policing is a devolved matter and should be overseen by a restored Executive at Stormont. The Chief Constable continues to engage extensively with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice on operational and financial issues. Both the Secretary of State and I have met the Chief Constable to discuss various issues. The PSNI does a superb job and will always have the fullest possible support of this Government. We have committed an extra £32 million a year to support its response to Northern Ireland-related terrorism.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response. Bearing in mind the fact that the potential overtime bill for the PSNI is £48 million, will he further outline his perception regarding recruitment, as it would be better to have a recruitment policy involving more feet on the ground, because that would adjust the overtime bill and ensure that police officers would not be burnt out because they have to work overtime? Will Ministers agree to do that?

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but he will be aware that PSNI operational matters such as staffing levels are a matter for the Chief Constable. I hope that he will take on board what the hon. Gentleman says.

Leaving the EU: Healthcare

Kerry McCarthy: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that healthcare provision in Northern Ireland is maintained after the UK leaves the EU.

Karen Bradley: There is ongoing positive engagement between UK Government officials and the Northern Ireland  civil service to ensure that the current provision is maintained as part of the common travel area, as agreed in the joint report in the December Council.

Kerry McCarthy: At the moment, children from Northern Ireland can access emergency heart surgery in Dublin, cancer patients from the Republic can have treatment in Derry and ambulances cross the border to attend emergencies. Can the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that that will continue post Brexit?

Karen Bradley: I visited the hospital in Derry and saw for myself the excellent treatment that patients from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland receive there. About a third of the patients at that hospital come from the Republic. It is essential that we maintain that situation by maintaining the common travel area, as agreed in the joint report in December. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is a considerable hubbub in the Chamber, which is arguably discourteous to the people of Northern Ireland and certainly unfair on Members from Northern Irish constituencies. Let us have a respectful hearing for Mr David Simpson.

David Simpson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the European health card system. Does she envisage that system continuing when we leave the European Union, or will there be some other arrangement?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that that was one of the early matters to be settled as part of the negotiations with the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was able to ensure that that will continue.

Live Animal Exports

Henry Smith: What steps she is taking to prevent the unnecessary suffering of live animals exported from Northern Ireland.

Shailesh Vara: The Government are committed to improving the welfare of all animals. We expect animals across the UK to be transported in conditions that comply fully with welfare requirements, and would prefer animals across the UK to be slaughtered close to the point of production. Animal welfare is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland; it would be for a future Northern Ireland Executive to determine their own policy.

Henry Smith: May I seek assurances that, as we leave the European Union, in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom we will use the opportunity to enhance animal welfare standards?

Shailesh Vara: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government share the public’s high regard for animal welfare, and we are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. He will appreciate, however, that animal welfare is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and it would be for a future Northern Ireland Executive to determine their own policy. We have been clear that when we leave the EU, we will not only maintain the existing rules on animal welfare but, where possible, look to strengthen those requirements.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: As the Minister has said, Northern Ireland has very high animal welfare standards, and surely we can do better than what the EU offers in terms of animal welfare standards.

Shailesh Vara: It is our intention not only to stay at the same level but to continue to improve our levels of animal welfare.

Devolved Government

David Hanson: What progress has been made on restoring devolved government in Northern Ireland.

Karen Bradley: I set out—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is nice to be welcomed so loudly—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. It is impossible to hear the Secretary of State. She did not realise just how popular she was, but now she knows.

Karen Bradley: I set out the Government’s approach to restoring devolved government in my statement to the House on 12 March. As I said then, the UK Government remain determined to see devolved government re-established. We are continuing to work with all the Northern Ireland parties—and with the Irish Government, as appropriate—towards restoring the Executive and a fully functioning Assembly.

David Hanson: What progress has the Secretary of State made on involving Assembly Members in scrutiny? Has she had discussions with the political parties, and does she expect them to be involved in the scrutiny of the budget proposals announced yesterday?

Karen Bradley: Specifically on the budget, I made sure that all the main political parties represented in Stormont had sight of it before I announced it, because I sincerely hope that they will be the parties that will actually deliver that budget. The right hon. Gentleman will also know from my statement of 12 March that I have had a number of representations and that I continue to receive suggestions about how we might get some form of functioning Assembly working in Stormont, and I am considering all those approaches.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Secretary of State realise that so long as Sinn Féin refuses to enter the Stormont Assembly without laying down pre-conditions and continues to create a toxic political atmosphere in Northern Ireland, there is little chance of restoring devolved Government, and that she must consider ways of ensuring that Northern Ireland is governed properly in the meantime?

Karen Bradley: As I have said, several suggestions and representations have been made to me about what the next steps might be, and I am considering all of them. I am looking at what we can do to ensure that we get something that gets us back on the road towards having a fully restored devolved Government.

Youth Commonwealth Games

Kate Hoey: What support the Government is providing for the hosting of the 2021 Youth Commonwealth Games in Belfast.

Karen Bradley: Under the terms of the devolution settlement, responsibility for sporting events such as the Commonwealth youth games is a matter for the devolved Administration. The Government are continuing to work towards the restoration of a devolved Government in Northern Ireland for precisely that reason. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is still too much noise in the Chamber. Let us hear the voice of Vauxhall.

Kate Hoey: I am afraid that that is really not good enough from the Secretary of State. Northern Ireland has won the right to host this hugely important sporting event, and the Secretary of State must make these decisions. We cannot wait until we get another Executive, which could be a very long time coming. The decision must be made, and the Secretary of State must actually show that she is in charge.

Karen Bradley: I feel as if I were answering questions in my previous role at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because this issue crossed my desk there. My officials have met the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games Council to discuss whether the option of holding the 2021 games in Northern Ireland could be sustained until such times as the devolved institutions are restored and in a position to consider the decisions required.

Paul Girvan: Northern Ireland is heavily dependent on tourism, including event-driven tourism. Our work is linked with that of Tourism Ireland but, unfortunately, we do not believe that we are getting a fair crack of the whip in terms of delivery for our contribution to that body.

John Bercow: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had in mind a particular focus on the games and just accidentally neglected to say so.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the 2021 games would bring tourists to Northern Ireland, and I have had discussions with both the Tourism Minister and others about tourism in Northern Ireland. He will welcome the call for evidence announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week with regard to specific tourism issues in Northern Ireland.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

George Howarth: If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 21 March.

Theresa May: Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the Westminster terrorist attack. It was a sick and depraved attack on the   streets of our capital, but what I remember most is the exceptional bravery of our police and security services, who risked their lives to keep us safe. I know that Members will be attending events tomorrow and over the weekend to mark this tragic anniversary.
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the family and friends of the Red Arrows engineer who tragically died in the aircraft incident at RAF Valley yesterday.
Members across the House will also wish to join me in congratulating Andria Zafirakou, who recently won the global teacher prize. It is a fitting tribute to everything that she has done, and I look forward to meeting her shortly to congratulate her in person.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

George Howarth: I am sure that the whole House will want to be associated with the condolences and congratulations that the Prime Minister has just expressed.
Since 2010, Merseyside police has lost 1,084 police officers. In 2017, crime in Knowsley went up by 18.5%, and there were 21 firearm discharges, one of which resulted in a fatality. Across the force area, there were 94 firearm discharges, with four fatalities. Local MPs have met Home Office Ministers, but no extra resources have been provided. Will the Prime Minister arrange for the Home Secretary to meet local MPs to discuss what additional support can be given to deal with that serious problem?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that with the Knowsley safety partnership with Merseyside police, crime statistics in his constituency have fallen by 9% since the year ending June 2010. He mentioned some incidents that are of real concern, and I am sure that the police are giving their full attention to them. We are ensuring that overall—[Interruption.] He points at the Home Secretary, but my right hon. Friend is ensuring that overall, in the next year, not only will we protect police budgets but we will see, with precept, £450 million extra available to police forces across the country.

Gareth Johnson: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s earlier comments? Britain’s ability to trade with the world has been curtailed by the EU for over 40 years, but we have now won the ability to sign our own trade agreements around the world. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is Brexit’s greatest opportunity, and ensures that we can embrace the globe as a truly proud international country once again?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is absolutely right—I agree with him that this is an important opportunity for the United Kingdom post Brexit, because for the first time in 40 years we will be able to step out into the world and forge our own way by negotiating our own trade agreements and signing trade deals with old friends and new allies alike. We will, of course, be able to do that. As he knows, from next March we will no longer be a member state of the European Union, and in due course we will be able to bring into force new trade arrangements around the rest of the world—a truly global Britain.

Jeremy Corbyn: I, too, join the Prime Minister in commemorating the attacks that took place in Westminster a year ago, and I, too, will be at some of the events tomorrow. We should all remember this as an attack on democracy within our society.
I also join the Prime Minister in sending condolences to the friends and family of the Red Arrows engineer who sadly died yesterday. We wish the pilot well in his recovery.
I had the pleasure of meeting Andria Zafirakou, who won the global teacher award, just before she went off to receive it, and we should all congratulate her and Alperton School in Brent on the great work that she does there.
Today is the Kurdish new year, Newroz, so can we wish all Kurdish people around the world a happy new year and, particularly for those who are suffering so much in the conflict in Syria, a hope of peace in the year to come?
Does the Prime Minister believe that the collapse of Northamptonshire Council is the result of Conservative incompetence at a local level, or is it Conservative incompetence at a national level?

Theresa May: May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in wishing all those who are celebrating a very happy Newroz?
If we are looking at what is happening in relation to local councils, obviously there has been a report on Northamptonshire County Council, but let us look at what we see across the board in councils. [Interruption.] Yes, yes—if we look at what is happening in councils up and down the country there is one message for everybody: Conservative councils cost you less.

Jeremy Corbyn: My question was actually quite specific to Northamptonshire. The Tory leader of the council said:
“We have been warning Government from about 2013-14…we couldn’t cope with the level of cuts that we were facing”.
Three years ago, that council bragged that it was pioneering an “easy council” model. It then proceeded to outsource 96% of council staff, and transferred them to new service providers, which were run like private companies paying dividends. Now that council has gone bust. Does the Prime Minister really believe that the slash and burn model for local government is really a good one?

Theresa May: I say to the right hon. Gentleman, first, that it would be helpful if he accurately reflected the independent statutory inspection, which concluded last week. The report was clear that Northamptonshire’s failure is not a case of underfunding. Indeed, Northamptonshire’s core spending power is set to rise by £14.5 million, so the attack he is making—that this is all about the amount of money the Government are providing—is not correct. What we are ensuring is that councils are able to provide good services up and down the country, and that is what we see with Conservative councils up and down the country—they are costing people less than Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn: But the problem is that Northampton- shire has gone bust, and this is caused by the Conservative Government and a Conservative council. It is a model  still being used by Barnet Borough Council, which, until very recently, was run by the Conservatives—they lost control of it this week. Capita holds contracts there with an estimated value of £500 million. What has Barnet done? It has cut council staff every year and increased spending on consultants every year. Government cuts mean that councils across England are facing a £5.8 billion funding gap by 2020. So with hindsight, does the Prime Minister really believe it was right to prioritise tax cuts for the super-rich and big business? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The House is becoming rather overexcited. I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister’s answer must be heard. The question from the Leader of the Opposition must also be heard, and it will be, however long it takes. [Interruption.] Mr Snell, you are behaving in a most undignified manner—compose yourself, man.

Jeremy Corbyn: There seemed to be a lot of concern among Conservative Members about my suggestion that the Government had prioritised tax cuts for the super-rich and big business, and put them as more important than funding for social care, libraries, repairing potholes, bin collection or street cleaning.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman talks about bin collection. Well, people living in Birmingham under a Labour-run council saw thousands of tonnes of waste on the streets because the council was failing to collect the bins. He talks about tax, and we all know that the top 1% of taxpayers are paying a higher burden of tax than they ever paid under Labour. And we all know what Labour would mean for council tax payers, because just this week the shadow Communities Secretary—[Interruption.] “Oh”, he says. Could that be because he does not want people to know what he is supporting? He has supported a plan to stop local taxpayers having the right to stop tax hikes; he is supporting a plan to introduce a land value tax—a tax on your home and your garden—and he wants to introduce a new hotel tax. We all know what would happen under Labour: more taxes, and ordinary working people would pay the price.

Jeremy Corbyn: The shadow Secretary of State supports councils, thinks they should be properly funded and does not think they should be a vehicle for privatisation.
The leader of Surrey County Council, who happens to be a Conservative, has said:
“We are facing the most difficult financial crisis in our history.”
He did not mince his words, because he went on to say:
“The Government cannot…stand idly by while Rome burns.”
Council funding has been cut by half since 2010. Households in England now face council tax rises of £1 billion. The Tory leader of the Local Government Association says that
“councils will have to continue to cut back services or stop some altogether”
due to Government cuts. So as people open their council tax bills, is it not clear what the Conservative message is—pay more to get less?

Theresa May: The average council tax for a band D property is £100 less under Conservative councils than it is under Labour councils. The right hon. Gentleman says that his shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is supporting councils, but I wonder whether he supports these councils: Haringey, where the Labour leader was forced out; Brighton, where the Labour leader was forced out; and Cornwall, where the Labour group leader was forced out. What had these people done? They had supported building more homes, providing good local services and tackling anti-Semitism in the Labour party. The message is clear: if you believe in good local services, want to see more homes built and want to tackle anti-Semitism, there is no place for you in the Labour party.

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour councils build houses; Conservative councils privatise—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is a very raucous atmosphere. I have said it before and I will say it again: Back-Bench Members should seek to imitate the zen-like calm of the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is an example to us all.

Jeremy Corbyn: We all admire zen, Mr Speaker.
Pay more for less is the Conservative message. In Leicestershire, the county council is pushing through £50 million-worth of cuts and council tax increases of 6%. Its deputy leader blamed chronically low Government funding. That is the Tory message: pay more to get less. It is not just households: the average small shop will see its rates bill increase by £3,600. Empty shops suck all the life out of our high streets and local communities, so why is the Prime Minister presiding over a Government who are tearing the heart out of our local high streets?

Theresa May: First of all, we have provided extra support for small businesses in relation to business rates. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about Labour councils building homes, but we have seen more council homes being built under this Government than under 13 years of a Labour Government. He talks about what councillors are saying at a local level; I am pleased to say that yesterday two Labour councillors from Ashfield District Council joined the Conservatives, and what did one of them say? He said:
“Both locally and nationally”
the Labour party
“has been taken over by the hard-left who are more interested in fighting internal ideological battles than standing up for the priorities of working men and women.”
Conservatives will always welcome people who care about their local area and we will always stand up for people in their local area.

Jeremy Corbyn: Half a million businesses will see their rates rise this year, some by 500%. Even Mary Portas, who led the Government’s “Save the High Street” campaign, said that it was simply a
“PR campaign which looked like ‘hey, we’re doing something’ and I hoped it might kick-start something—but it didn’t.”
The Conservative Government have slashed public services. They cut funding and expect councils to pick up the pieces. The result is that children’s centres are closing, schools are struggling, there are fewer police on   the streets, older people are being left without care or dignity, and refuges are turning women away. The Tories’ own head of local government says it is unsustainable. Doesn’t it tell us everything we need to know about the Government that they demand that households and businesses pay more to get less?

Theresa May: This Government are spending more on our schools and on our NHS than ever before. We are able to do that because of the balanced approach we take to our economy and because of the strong economy we see under the Conservatives. I notice that in his six questions the right hon. Gentleman did not mention today’s unemployment figures. Employment is at a joint record high. Unemployment has not been lower since 1975. Economic inactivity is at a record low. That is a strong jobs market. Who benefits from a strong jobs market? Labour staffers, Labour council leaders and moderate Labour Members of Parliament.

Tom Pursglove: I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition has not read the report about Northamptonshire County Council; I commend it to him. But I want to focus on a different issue today. Worldwide, every minute, millions of throwaway paper coffee cups go to landfill. To solve that, we need industry, consumers and Government to work together. In that spirit, Amaray, a company in my constituency, has developed a fully recyclable alternative cup; it can be easily recycled, unlike the current option. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that innovation? Perhaps if she is around afterwards, I might be able to give one to her.

Theresa May: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that, if he would like to come along and see me afterwards, I am very happy to do that. He has raised an important point. As he knows, we are committed to wanting to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. I congratulate Amaray and welcome the innovation that it has shown. This is an important example of working with industry to ensure that we are dealing with this issue of plastic waste. We were clear in our 25-year environment plan that that is what we want to do, and Amaray is a very good example of exactly that.

Ian Blackford: Can I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister about the terrorist atrocity in Westminster a year ago? Our thoughts are obviously with those who gave their lives and, of course, with the emergency services. I also want to associate myself with the remarks about the loss of the engineer.
Does the Prime Minister agree that subverting the democratic political process of any country is totally unacceptable?

Theresa May: We certainly believe in ensuring that democratic processes are able to continue and that people see free and fair elections. I think that is what everybody in this House would recognise and would accept.

Ian Blackford: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. May I point out to her that the parent company of Cambridge Analytica is Strategic Communications  Laboratories? It has been run by a chairman of the Oxford Conservative Association. Its founding chairman was a former Conservative MP. A director appears to have donated more than £700,000 to the Tory party. A former Conservative party treasurer is a shareholder. We know about the links to the Conservative party: they go on and on. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House her Government’s connections to the company?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about two companies: the parent company, SCL, and Cambridge Analytica. As far as I am aware, the Government have no current contracts with Cambridge Analytica, or with the SCL group. The allegations are clearly very concerning, and it is absolutely right that they should be properly investigated. It is right that the Information Commissioner is doing exactly that because people need to have confidence in how their personal data is being used. I would expect Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and all organisations involved to comply fully with the investigation that is taking place. I am pleased to say that the Bill that we are bringing forward on data protection will strengthen legislation around data protection and give the Information Commissioner’s Office tougher powers to ensure that organisations comply. I hope that it will be supported by everybody across this House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: We now have a lot of Back Benchers’ questions to get through.

Gordon Henderson: Some London boroughs are renting houses in Kent, including in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, for use as temporary accommodation for homeless families. My local authorities are then expected to provide those families with the support they need. That is putting a strain on Kent’s schools, hospitals and social services, which receive no extra funding to provide that support. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the London Mayor and the London boroughs should be providing more homes in the capital so that London families can be looked after by them, instead of placing the burden of care on hard-pressed council tax payers in Kent?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to speak up on behalf of his constituents on this issue. London authorities must secure temporary accommodation within their own borough, as far as is reasonably practical. We have also changed the law so that councils must take into account the impact that a change in location would have on a household. However, he is absolutely right: we do want the London Mayor and London boroughs to be able to build more homes. Money has been provided to the Mayor of London to build affordable homes. It is a pity that he has not been building as many as we would like.

Stephen Morgan: School cuts in Portsmouth under this Government will reach £3.3 million by 2019, meaning that classrooms are being starved of the resources that they need, including textbooks and basic stationery. At the same time, approximately 40,000 children in the south-east are relying on food banks. If the Prime Minister were a  teacher who had been under a pay cut for eight years, what would she buy a struggling child in one of my city’s classrooms—a textbook or a square meal?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of school funding. As I said in response to the Leader of the Opposition, the amount of money that we are spending on schools is greater than it has ever been before. What matters is the quality of education provided in schools, which is why I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not welcome the fact that over 20,000 children in his area are now at a good or outstanding school; that is 9,000 more than in 2010.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am sure that we all recognise and welcome the employment figures announced today but, given the latest report that there are still unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment among ethnic communities in Britain, will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what the new £90 million fund will do to help young people into work?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We know these figures because of the race disparity audit that I commissioned when I became Prime Minister. The audit shows that there has been progress, but we need to do more because 16 to 24-year-olds in other ethnic groups are twice as likely as their white peers to be unemployed. The £90 million that I announced will help to tackle those inequalities in youth employment. The initiative will be run by the Big Lottery Fund, and it will identify the barriers to employment for those young people and help them to overcome those barriers. That is incredibly important. I was very pleased to visit Street League in Birmingham, which is already doing excellent work in this area.

Louise Ellman: The war in Syria has now entered its eighth year. In recent weeks, over 1,000 people have been killed in eastern Ghouta. In Afrin, hundreds of Kurds lie dead and 200,000 civilians are desperately fleeing for their lives; even the hospital has been attacked. What will the Government do to help to bring urgent humanitarian relief for those in such despair?

Theresa May: We take the situation in eastern Ghouta very seriously indeed, which is why we have raised the issue at the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign Secretary has also raised this matter with others. We have been very clear about what needed to happen to ensure that people could be protected, that humanitarian aid could get in and that safe passage could be given to those for whom it was necessary due to their condition. We will continue to press this case.

Michelle Donelan: The Select Committee on Education recently interviewed a panel of university vice-chancellors who failed to recognise that their salaries are outrageous, being twice that of the Prime Minister and mainly funded by the taxpayer and student debt. Given that these outrageous salaries are paid in even the poorest performing universities, will the Prime Minister confirm that this situation will be looked at in the post-18 education review?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised a point that others are concerned about as well. Of course, universities are autonomous from Government, so it is up to them how they set the pay of their vice-chancellors and what level they set it at, but they should recognise that students and taxpayers are all contributing to our higher education system and expect value for money. The Office for Students which has now been set up will be acting to ensure greater transparency in relation to senior staff pay and requiring a justification for the total remuneration package that is awarded to the head of the provider and the provider’s most senior staff, so we will now start to see a light being shone very clearly on the issue that my hon. Friend raises.

Drew Hendry: Last week, the Agriculture and Fisheries Secretary and Ruth Davidson said:
“The Prime Minister has been clear: Britain will leave the CFP as of March 2019.”
Now, the UK is staying in the common fisheries policy but with no say on quotas—the worst deal imaginable. What changed between last week and this week?

Theresa May: We will be working with the fishing industry, both fishermen and fish processors, to ensure that we do see a bright future for the fishing industry. I want to see three things: we will take back control of our waters, we will ensure that we do not see British fishermen unfairly denied access to other waters, and we want to rebuild our fishing industry. But it is the Conservative party that is committed to coming out of the common fisheries policy; the hon. Gentleman’s party wants to stay in the common fisheries policy.

Victoria Prentis: Cherwell is really proud to be building three houses a day but construction traffic is playing havoc with our road services. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss what more national Government can do to help with inevitable growing pains?

Theresa May: First of all, I am very happy to congratulate Cherwell on the homes that it is building, but I recognise that this brings with it other challenges. At Budget we more than doubled the housing infrastructure fund with another £2.7 billion, and earlier today my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary, I am pleased to say, announced a further 44 areas shortlisted for funding for major infrastructure projects worth £4.1 billion, with the potential to deliver 400,000 more homes. I recognise the important role that infrastructure plays, and that is why the Government are delivering it.

David Crausby: The Prime Minister was right to prevent members of the royal family and Government Ministers from attending the football World cup in Russia, but what is being done to safeguard everyday football fans in what was, in my view, already a dangerous place to watch football, even before the incident in Salisbury? What advice will be given to travelling English supporters, many of whom have already bought their tickets, and is she confident that adequate co-operation between our police and the Russian police will protect English fans?

Theresa May: I recognise the important issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, because we want British football fans to be able to be safe when they are enjoying watching the England team. We are currently working very closely with the police in looking at what arrangements will be in place to support the England football fans who travel to Russia. The Foreign Office will be carefully monitoring the situation and ensuring that advice is available to football fans so that they are aware of the circumstances there will be in Russia and what support will be available.

Pauline Latham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have mentioned Jacci Woodcock, a terminally ill constituent of mine who set up the Dying to Work campaign. Santander, her mortgage broker, has been incredibly helpful in freezing her payments and will take them from her estate when she dies, but now it has gone even further—it is not increasing the interest payments either. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other banks should follow the caring and compassionate example set by Santander and that we should encourage them to look after terminally ill people in the same way?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised an issue that I know she cares about very deeply. I am certainly happy to join her in congratulating Santander on the support that it has provided to Jacci Woodcock. Obviously, my hon. Friend has raised a wider issue. It is important for employers to be aware of and to fulfil their legal obligations to their employees, including terminally ill employees, and I am sure that others will look at the excellent example that Santander has set.

Mohammad Yasin: said this week that Bedford’s relatively affordable housing and easy access to London have made it one of the best places to live in the UK, but Bedford constituents are concerned about the school funding cuts, court services cuts, the impending closure of our only walk-in centre, the big increase in homelessness and the loss of fast peak-time rail services to London. My question to the Prime Minister is, why are her Government ruining the prospects of our great town?

Theresa May: The prospects of the hon. Gentleman’s great town are being improved. They are being improved by the fact that we see thousands more children in good or outstanding schools in Bedford local authority than when we came into power. They are being improved by the fact that extra funding is going into the health service in Bedford. They are also being improved by the fact that this Government are ensuring we have a strong economy, providing jobs for people in his constituency.

Bim Afolami: Financial services are critical to thousands of my constituents and to the country as a whole. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to update the House on the progress made on ensuring that our future trade deal with the European Union includes an agreement on financial services?

Theresa May: I am well aware of the importance of financial services for the United Kingdom, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere, and also the important role that the City of London plays in the  financial sector for the whole of the European Union. We are in discussion with the European Union about this matter, and there is a recognition of the significant role that the City of London plays and the importance of ensuring that we maintain access to finance across the European Union.

Ellie Reeves: Mental health issues affect one in 10 children, who on average have to see their GP three times before a referral, with many waiting up to 18 months for treatment. I acknowledge the Green Paper on this issue, but at a time when national funding in this area is being constantly cut, including a 5% reduction in funding to Lewisham child and adolescent mental health services, is this not another example of the Government saying one thing but doing another with our NHS?

Theresa May: The Government are putting more funding into mental health provision. We have already committed to making available an additional £1.4 billion to improve children and young people’s mental health services, and we have committed that, by 2020-21, 70,000 more children and young people each year will have access to high-quality NHS mental health care. The hon. Lady rightly raises mental health as an important issue for us to deal with, and particularly the mental health of children and young people, but across the board we need to give more attention to mental health. We are putting money into it, and we are clear that we want to see parity of esteem between mental health and physical health in the national health service. That is something the Labour party in 13 years of government failed to do.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The EU agreement published this week has sadly left my fishermen in Amble and the north-east very anxious. While it is great news that we will regain control of our fishing grounds at the end of the implementation period, there is real concern that our EU colleagues might try to take advantage of our losing our voice in the CFP by altering discard rules or quota rules during the implementation period. Will the Prime Minister consider asking the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to prepare a financial mitigation plan to protect our fleet until 2021 should we need to do so?

Theresa May: The implementation period is there so that people have the certainty of being able to operate on the same basis until we reach the new partnership that we are negotiating. As I said earlier, in that new partnership, we want to take back control of our waters but ensure that British fishermen are not unfairly denied access to other waters and that we can rebuild our fishing industry. That is important. My hon. Friend mentioned quotas. It has been agreed that the stability key will not be changed, so the quotas that British fishermen will be operating under will not be changed. I know that DEFRA is looking actively at how we can ensure that we not only maintain our fishing industry, but enhance and rebuild it after we leave.

Liz Saville-Roberts: This week, every party in Westminster took part in an international summit to challenge violence against women  in politics, and online abuse dominated the discussions. Last year, the Prime Minister’s Government considered a statutory code of practice for social media corporations, holding them to account for the abusive content they publish. Will she confirm whether she remains content with a toothless voluntary code, or will she now give us a digital guard dog that both barks and bites?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady raises an important point. On all of these issues, we have taken the view that we should first sit down with those in the industry and work with them to see what they are willing to do on a voluntary basis, but they know that if that does not actually work, we will look at legislation. She raises an important point about the abuse that takes place. She refers particularly to the abuse that takes place within political campaigning, and I am afraid we have now reached a very sorry state of affairs in this country. We want to see free and fair elections, and people having the confidence to be able to go out and put their views forward without fearing that they are going to be abused for it.

Daniel Kawczynski: The clinically led Future Fit programme for Shropshire seeks to improve and modernise hospital services across the county of Shropshire. We have been waiting for a decision on this issue for many years. Will the Prime Minister use her good offices to ensure that this vital scheme is supported in the coming weeks, so that we can secure this vital investment for Shropshire NHS?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to speak up for the NHS in Shropshire in the way he has done. He will be pleased to see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care heard his comments, and I think will be contacting him about this issue.

Nick Smith: The Bercow review made a big difference in improving services for children with communication needs—communication is the key life skill for children to learn and thrive—yet, a decade on, the latest report shows that much more needs to be done. Will the Prime Minister commit to a cross-Government strategy that puts this issue at the heart of policy and gives all our children the best possible start in life?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue. We welcome the report, and the Department for Education is going to be considering it carefully. We do not want to see any child held back from achieving their potential, and that includes ensuring that children with speech, language and communication needs are given the support they need. There has been particular training for teachers to support children who require additional help to communicate, and we will be introducing the education, health and care plans to make sure that children with additional needs receive the right support to succeed in school in the future, but we will look very carefully at what the report has said and obviously respond to it in due course.

Mark Francois: Unlike the SNP, I do not want to see Britain rejoin the disastrous common fisheries policy, but I do have some  concerns about the fisheries aspects of the transitional agreement that has been provisionally agreed with the European Union. Before she travels to the European Council, will the Prime Minister reassure the House, and indeed fishing communities around the United Kingdom, that we will absolutely and unequivocally take back full control of our waters from 2021?

Theresa May: As I said earlier, the point about the implementation period is that it is the period during which people are able to make the changes necessary for the new partnership we will have. It ensures that businesses, fishermen included, do not face two cliff-edge changes in the way they are operating. By definition—because it is maintaining, as far as possible, the status quo, so that people do not have to make those extra changes—I recognise that it is not the same and will not be the same as the end state when we are able to have a future economic partnership and have a new relationship. As I said earlier, one of the elements that we will be looking for in reassuring the fishing industry and providing for the fishing industry is to ensure that we do take back control of our waters.

Albert Owen: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the SNP in offering condolences to the family of the Royal Air Force engineer who was tragically killed in my constituency yesterday? The RAF has been part of my constituency for over 75 years, with a tight-knit group of aircraftmen and support staff on the ground. While they are grieving, will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the RAF as it commemorates its century of dedicated service to our country?

Theresa May: I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in saying what a great job the Royal Air Force does for us; of course he sees it at first hand, given its connection with his constituency. We should recognise the valour of all those who are serving in our armed forces—particularly, in this 100th year of the Royal Air Force, those who serve in the Royal Air Force. We thank them for it.

Charlie Elphicke: May I welcome the Government’s decision to create a medical school at Canterbury in east Kent, which was fought for by all Kent’s MPs—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who has been indefatigable in that fight? Does this not underline the importance of training more doctors and nurses, to ensure that our health services in the regions are well staffed and looked after?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to welcome the new medical school in Canterbury, but also the four other new medical schools being set up around various parts of the country. He is also absolutely right that this is about ensuring that we are training a workforce for our national health service. We have raised significantly the number of training places—I think it is probably the biggest increase in training places that the NHS has seen for some considerable time.

Fiona Onasanya: Given that mesh can shrink, degrade or twist in a woman’s body, can I ask the Prime Minister whether she will support proposals to “sling the mesh”?

Theresa May: I recognise that this is a very real, important issue that has been raised. It is one of a number of women’s health issues that have been raised in this House that are causing concern to women. I will look in detail at it. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady about this, but I recognise the concern that there is about this particular issue. I am happy to write to her about what the national health service will be doing  on it.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the remarkable staff of Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow, who have ensured that the hospital is out of special measures today following a report from the Care Quality Commission? Will she support our campaign for a new hospital to ensure that the staff have a hospital fit for the 21st century?

Theresa May: I congratulate the local hospital in Harlow that my right hon. Friend has referred to on coming out of those special measures. I think that is very important and I know it will give added confidence to his constituents. He tempts me to support a new hospital in his area. As he will know, the Secretary of State has heard his request, but what we do know is that we are putting more money into the national health service to ensure that we do get the best possible services provided to people through our national health service.

John Bercow: Thank you. Before we proceed to next business, I take this opportunity to remind the House that tomorrow we will be commemorating the Westminster terrorist attack of a year ago, reference to which was made earlier. I propose that we begin our proceedings tomorrow after prayers with a minute’s silence in memory of those who died. There will also be, colleagues, a commemorative event in Westminster Hall at 12 noon and services in the chapel of St Mary Undercroft at 10 am, 2 pm and 6 pm. I hope that is helpful to colleagues.
Although points of order ordinarily come after urgent questions or statements, I understand that this inquiry appertains to exchanges with the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether that was today or on a previous occasion, but let us hear from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh).

Louise Haigh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It does particularly relate to today’s session because police funding was referenced by the Prime Minister today. You may have seen that the UK Statistics Authority issued a statement yesterday reprimanding the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Home Office for making statements that
“could have led the public to conclude incorrectly that central government is providing an additional £450 million for police spending”
this year. Given that the “Ministerial Code” requires that Ministers correct
“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity”,
would it not have been appropriate for the Prime Minister to apologise to this House and the public for inadvertently misleading us in Prime Minister’s questions?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I confess that I had not seen the UK Statistics Authority communication to which she referred, but obviously her beady eye has focused on it. What I would say to her in respect of the conduct of Ministers is that, as applies to all right hon. and hon. Members, those Ministers are responsible for their own conduct. If they judge that they have made a mistake—communicated incorrect information to the House that has given an incorrect impression—it is incumbent on them to correct the record, but it is not for the Speaker to be the arbiter of whether that is required. To judge by the puckish grin on the hon. Lady’s face, I think she is well familiar with that point, but she has registered her point with her usual force. Doubtless it will be communicated to the people of Sheffield, Heeley and elsewhere.

Anna Soubry: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and to your wise words and guidance, you will recall that in business questions last week I specifically said to the Leader of the House that  there was growing concern that although Ministers are properly accountable to this place and can be called if they have said anything that is not accurate, that does not extend to Opposition Members.
Yet again in Prime Minister’s questions, we have had assertions from right hon. and hon. Opposition Members of facts that are disputed. Mr Speaker, I do not expect you to give any ruling now—you cannot—but would it be in order for the House to consider how we ensure that we report things factually and that any means of challenge extends to the Opposition as well as to the Government?

John Bercow: I shall always profit by the right hon. Lady’s counsels and I am grateful to her for offering them. Off the top of my head, I would say that the assertion of disputable facts is the very essence of politics. The assertion by one Member of something as fact that is contradicted or questioned by another Member is not a novel phenomenon in the House of Commons. I think we will have to leave it there for today.
The right hon. Lady raised a wider point appertaining to social networking sites, at or after business questions last Thursday, to which I gave a fairly comprehensive reply that can always be consulted by Members in the unlikely event that they have nothing better to do.

NHS STAFF PAY

Jon Ashworth: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on NHS pay.

Jeremy Hunt: The whole House will want to pay tribute to the hard work of NHS staff up and down the country during one of the most difficult winters in living memory. Today’s agreement on a new pay deal reflects public appreciation for just how much they have done and continue to do, but it is much more than that. The agreement that NHS trade unions have recommended to their members today is a something for something deal that brings in profound changes in productivity in exchange for significant rises in pay.
The deal will ensure better value for money from the £36 billion NHS pay bill, with some of the most important changes to working practices in a decade, including a commitment to work together to improve the health and wellbeing of NHS staff to bring sickness absence in line with the best in the public sector. We know that NHS sickness rates are around a third higher than the public sector average, and reducing sickness absence by just 1% in the NHS will save around £280 million. The deal will put appraisal and personal development at the heart of pay progression, with often automatic incremental pay replaced by larger, less frequent pay increases based on the achievement of agreed professional milestones. It includes a significantly higher boost to lower-paid staff, to boost recruitment in a period when we know the NHS needs a significant increase in staffing to deal with the pressures of an ageing population. Pay rises range from 6.5% to 29% over three years, with much higher rises targeted on those on the lowest and starting rates of pay.
As part of the deal, the lowest starting salary in the NHS will increase by more than £2,500, from £15,404 this year to £18,040 in 2020-21, and a newly qualified nurse will receive starting pay 12.6%—nearly £3,000—higher in 2020-21 than this year. But this deal is about retention as well as recruitment. It makes many other changes that NHS staff have been asking for—such as shared parental leave and the ability to buy extra or sell back annual leave—so they can better manage their work and family lives, work flexibly and balance caring commitments.
The additional funding that Chancellor announced in the Budget to cover this deal—an estimated £4.2 billion over three years—cements the Government’s commitment to protecting services for NHS patients, while recognising the work of NHS staff up and down the country. This is only possible because of the balanced approach we are taking—investing in our public services and helping families with the cost of living, while getting our debt falling. Rarely has a pay rise been so well deserved for NHS staff, who have never worked harder.

Jon Ashworth: The Secretary of State has finally given the lowest-paid NHS staff a pay rise. Staff, royal colleges, trade unions and the Labour party have today been vindicated in saying that a pay rise is long overdue.  But when we have seen nurses, paramedics and midwives losing thousands of pounds from the value of their pay, heard stories of NHS staff turning to food banks, have 100,000 vacancies across the service, seen more nurses leaving the profession than entering and seen trusts spending billions of pounds on agency staff, this pay cap should have been scrapped years ago.
In the general election, Ministers said that scrapping the pay cap was nonsensical. When a nurse pleaded with the Prime Minister for a pay rise on national television, she was told that there was no magic money tree. Can the Secretary of State tell us how this pay rise will be paid for? Have the Prime Minister’s horticultural skills grown said magic money tree? We have heard that there will be additional money. When will trusts get the allocations, and if the money is additional, will it be paid for by extra borrowing or extra taxation? Public servants deserve reassurances that the Government will not give with one hand and take with the other.
Given the projections for inflation, can the Secretary of State guarantee that staff will not face a real-terms pay cut in any single year of the deal? We note that he has backed down on docking a day’s holiday. Will he commit to not tabling that proposal again? We also note that he will not block the transfer of hospital staff to wholly owned subsidiary companies. Will he at least guarantee that all staff employed by such companies will be covered by “Agenda for Change” terms? Can he tell us when the rest of the public sector will get a pay deal?
NHS pay has been held back for the best part of a decade. Today is a first step, but the NHS remains underfunded and understaffed. We urgently need a plan to give the NHS the funding it needs for the future.

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman wants a plan to give the NHS the funding it needs, can he explain why Labour in Wales has deprived the NHS of £1 billion of funding that it would have had if funding had increased at the same rate as in England? Far from Labour being vindicated, the House will remember that the pay restraint in the NHS for the past eight years was caused by the worst financial recession since the second world war, caused by a catastrophic loss of control of public finances.
The hon. Gentleman asks for some details. Today’s pay deal means that someone starting work in the NHS as a healthcare assistant will see their rate of pay over the next three years go up by 26%, nearly £4,000. A nurse with three years’ experience will see a 25% increase, which is more than £6,000 over three years. A band 6 paramedic with four years’ experience will see a £4,000 rise. On top of that, we are putting in a huge number of things that NHS staff will welcome, including, for example, statutory child bereavement leave and shared parental leave. Yes, we are asking for important productivity changes in return, but this is about the modernisation of NHS staff terms and conditions, which is good for them and good for taxpayers.
The hon. Gentleman asks where the money is coming from: it is additional funding from the Treasury for the NHS. It is not coming from extra borrowing. If he had been listening to the autumn statement, he would have heard that debt as a proportion of GDP is starting to fall this year for the first time. That is possible because we have taken very difficult decisions over the past eight  years—they were opposed by the Labour party—that have meant 3 million more jobs and have transformed our economy out of recession into growth. None of that would have been possible if we did what his party is now advocating, which is to lose control of public finances by increasing borrowing by £350 billion. Let us just remind ourselves that countries that lose control of their finances do not put more money into their health services—they put less. In Portugal, the amount is down 17%, and in Greece, it is down 39%. The reason that we can announce today’s deal is very simple: this country is led by a Government who know that only a strong economy gives us a strong NHS.

Sarah Wollaston: I warmly welcome today’s announcement of a well-deserved pay rise for NHS staff and, in particular, that this will be additional funding of £4.2 billion over three years, rather than it coming out of existing resources. I particularly welcome the focus on staff health and wellbeing, which was raised by the recent Health Committee inquiry into the nursing workforce. In particular, I ask the Secretary of State to go further and talk about what will be done on continuing professional development for NHS staff, because this was identified as a key factor in retention. He referred to it partially in his comments, but I wonder whether he could go further.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. Underneath this agreement, there is a very important new partnership between NHS employers and the unions to improve the health and wellbeing of staff through mental health provision and the implementation of the Stevenson-Farmer review, taking on board a number of points raised by the Health Committee, and through improved support for people with musculoskeletal conditions, because a lot of NHS work is very physical. However, she is absolutely right: professional development is also very important. By reforming the increments system that we have been using for many years, we will give staff the chance to see their pay go up in a way that is linked to their skills going up as well. That is something that many staff will welcome.

David Linden: May I associate myself with the comments made by the Secretary of State in paying tribute to our NHS staff? It is good to have not just warm words today, but substantive action. He has referred to devolved nations elsewhere in the UK, and I hope that he will acknowledge that the Scottish Government were the first Government in the UK to lift the public sector pay cap.
Although this announcement is welcome, we have committed to using any additional funds that come to Scotland through consequentials to go into the Scottish pay agreement. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected that average earnings will go up by 7.7% in the next three years, while the retail prices index goes up by over 9%. Has the Secretary of State taken that into account, or are the Government ignoring the OBR on average earnings? Committing to a three-year deal could stagnate wages and lower the standard of living, and none of us in this House wants that to happen.

Jeremy Hunt: The majority of NHS staff will see that their pay is protected against the cost of living, but many NHS staff, including the lowest-paid, will see  increases that are substantially higher than inflation rates, because, first, that is the kind of society that we believe in. Conservative Members want everyone to be given decent rates of pay, and there are many parts of the country where the cost of living is very high and this will make a very big difference. We also recognise that there will be 1 million more over-75s in 10 years’ time, so we need to expand the number of staff in the NHS and its capacity to deal with those pressures. We therefore need to attract more people into working for the NHS and social care systems.

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend; I know of his huge personal commitment to the NHS and how he has battled for it over the years—I have seen that personally. I unashamedly, absolutely agree that this is a very good deal, and I congratulate nurses and others on this pay rise, which they deserve and for which they have worked very hard. Is it not also right to recognise and remember that back in 2008-09, Labour’s great depression plunged the economy into the biggest and most difficult economic trench that it has faced? As a result of our stewardship and our support of the NHS through that period, unlike many other countries that cut their health spending, we secured 200,000 jobs in the NHS, and now we can start rewarding staff for their hard work.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my right hon. Friend and commend him on his courage in putting through some incredibly challenging and important reforms to our welfare state, when many people said that it was nigh on impossible. He is right: the biggest and most misleading thing that we hear is the charge that in austerity Britain, the NHS budget has been cut. In fact, the countries that cut their health budgets were Portugal and Greece—countries that are following precisely the policies that are advocated by the Opposition. In this country—so-called austerity Britain—NHS spending has gone up by 9%.

Vincent Cable: On the vexed question of how to pay for the NHS, has the Secretary of State been in any way influenced by the testimony of the recently retired permanent secretary to the Treasury, who at last acknowledged that the only way to do it was to have some form of earmarked taxation?

Jeremy Hunt: The former permanent secretary to the Treasury is an extremely wise and experienced public servant, and I always listen to what he says with a great deal of interest.

Rebecca Pow: I have met many nurses from Taunton Deane to press their case for a rise in salary, and I have passed that on not just to the Department of Health and Social Care, but to the Chancellor. I welcome today’s pay rise; I think these hard-working nurses all deserve it, and we congratulate them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today’s £4 billion commitment demonstrates that this is a listening Government who are taking investment in the health service extremely seriously?

Jeremy Hunt: I very much enjoyed meeting nurses and staff at Musgrove Park Hospital when my hon. Friend invited me there recently. I know that they will welcome  today’s deal and they would welcome even more investment in their operating theatres, which she is campaigning for assiduously.

Luciana Berger: We have lost over 5,000 nurses working in mental health since 2010. As a result of this announcement on pay, when does the Secretary of State expect the number of mental health nurses to return to 2010 levels?

Jeremy Hunt: We would have more nurses in mental health if we had not had to deal with the crisis at Mid Staffs and pronounced short staffing in our acute hospitals. Since I have been Health Secretary, we have 15,000 more nurses in the NHS and we are also finding more money to go into mental health. It is time that the hon. Lady recognised that, rather than trying to paint the opposite picture.

Philip Dunne: I add my voice to those congratulating the Secretary of State and his ministerial team on a tremendous achievement in discussions with the Treasury to secure this additional funding. I invite him to comment on the work that has been done by the health unions and the Royal College of Nursing, in particular, in helping to deliver this agreement and particularly to give many of the people on starting salaries a significant uplift, which he referred to earlier. This will make it easier to attract people to the vital starting roles for future generations.

Jeremy Hunt: I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend because, when he was working in my Department, he laid a lot of foundations for this deal. He chaired some very important meetings. In particular, one of the most important areas of consensus that has emerged, which he should take enormous credit for, is that we are saying today that the minimum salary for anyone working in the NHS will go up by £2,000. That is going to make a huge difference—100,000 people will benefit from that important change—and he should be very proud of that.

Bambos Charalambous: NHS trusts are spending £3 billion a year on agency staff to plug gaps in the workforce. Has the pay cap not been totally self-defeating and led to huge amounts of public money going to private staffing agencies?

Jeremy Hunt: What led to the mushrooming agency fee was the realisation, post Mid Staffs, that we needed a lot more nurses. Nursing staff numbers were going down until the Francis report was published, but the report created huge demand among hospitals, which realised they needed to improve patient safety by recruiting more staff. The hon. Gentleman will be please to know, however, that we are bringing down the agency bill, and I expect it to be significantly lower this year.

Maria Caulfield: It is disappointing to see the lack of welcome from Labour Members for this pay rise for NHS staff in England—one day after the announcement of five new medical schools across the country. Has the Secretary of State had discussions with the Labour Government in Wales to see if they will be replicating this pay rise for NHS staff in Wales?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend as one of the practising nurses in the House and someone who always makes sure that the voice of nursing is heard loud and proud in this place. I very much hope that the devolved Governments will follow suit with this deal, although for every additional pound per head we have put into the NHS in England, Labour in Wales has put in only 57p.

Stella Creasy: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), we all know how much agency nurses cost the NHS, and the same goes for private finance initiatives. These companies are making £1 billion in profits, which is money that will not touch any of our hospital budgets, including that of my own, Whipps Cross Hospital, which has a 17% agency rate and tried to deal with its PFI debt by downgrading the pay of nurses to save money. What is the Secretary of State doing to cut the PFI bill for our hospitals and prevent them from balancing their books off the backs of hard-working staff?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that problem. We have certainly stopped doing any new PFI deals of the disastrous kind that lead to the consequences she talks about. We have given some relief to a number of hospitals in that area, but I will look again at her local hospital, because it is clearly totally unacceptable if that is happening.

Will Quince: Colchester General Hospital has recently come out of special measures, and the staff there have worked so hard to turn our hospital around, so I welcome wholeheartedly this announcement of extra money, which means that our staff will get a well-deserved pay rise. I will always champion our hospital, however, so will my right hon. Friend commit to continuing to invest in our hospital and its people? In particular, will he look at the accident and emergency department?

Jeremy Hunt: I will happily do that. The hon. Gentleman has championed his hospital, which has been on a rollercoaster journey during his time in this House but which has now turned a corner. The staff have worked incredibly hard to improve safety standards for patients, but I know that, like many places, they would like more investment in their A&E, and I will certainly look at it.

Ben Lake: I, like many others, welcome the fact that NHS workers in England will finally receive a pay rise they deserve. Of course, health is devolved to the Welsh Government, so could the Secretary of State clarify how much of this additional funding is new funding and what the Barnett consequential will be for the Welsh Government?

Jeremy Hunt: This constitutes an investment by the Treasury of £4.2 billion, and the normal Barnett consequentials will apply, so it is perfectly possible for the Labour Government in Wales to replicate this deal if they choose to, but we know, of course, that had they replicated the increases in funding to the NHS in England, the NHS in Wales would have had an additional £1 billion spent on it over the past five years.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Julian Lewis: rose—

John Bercow: I see that two doctors are standing on the Government Back Benches. I am sure that the House will understand if I call the medic rather than the military strategist.

Andrew Murrison: I warmly welcome this announcement and congratulate my right hon. Friend, the trade unions and NHS Employers on reaching this deal. One problem facing our NHS is that of people not returning to work after they have had caring responsibilities. What elements of the deal will encourage more people to consider coming back into the workforce? I am thinking, in particular, of the non-pay elements and the reform of pay structures that he has mentioned.

Jeremy Hunt: The most important thing about the deal is that it will discourage people who might be reaching breaking point, because of personal circumstances, from packing it all in and leaving the NHS family. There is a particular proposal to allow much greater flexibility in the buying and selling of annual leave so that people who need to work less because of things that happen at home, and perhaps people who want to work more, find it much easier to do so. This is therefore part of a much bigger shift towards the flexible working that we know everyone wants these days.

Eleanor Smith: I absolutely appreciate the Secretary of State’s announcement on pay. As a nurse who has worked for more than 40 years, I know that it is greatly welcomed by everybody across the patch, including porters. I want to ask, however, about wholly owned subsidiary staff. I believe that some of them are not under “Agenda for Change” terms. Will they get the pay rise as well?

Jeremy Hunt: First, I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the deal. I think she is the first Labour Member who has done so, and it is not insignificant that she is a nurse. A wholly owned subsidiary is a legal structure that was made possible by a change in the law introduced in 2006, under her party’s Government, and is actually an alternative to outsourcing. Employees would be far more likely to benefit from “Agenda for Change” pay rates within such a structure than if they were outsourced, which the last Labour Government tried so hard to encourage.

Gary Streeter: When I met Devon’s secretary of the Royal College of Nursing recently to discuss nurses’ pay, she made the obvious point that she was getting a bit fed up with politicians saying that they valued nurses while not actually adding to their pay packets. Does my right hon. Friend agree that from today not only will we be saying that we value nurses, but that that will be reflected in their pay packets? I congratulate him and the RCN on achieving such a good deal.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to Janet Davies, the boss of the RCN, who has worked very hard to make this deal happen and in the best interests of her profession.

Ruth Smeeth: My healthcare economy was held together over the winter solely by the good will of NHS workers, yet they have  had a 14% pay cut in real terms since 2010. This announcement is a drop in the ocean. How does the Secretary of State think that it will help retention rates?

Jeremy Hunt: I cannot agree that this is a drop in the ocean. If the hon. Lady does not want to hear it from me, let me point out what was said by the Unison head of health, Sara Gorton, who is also the head negotiator for the NHS unions. She said that the deal
“would go a long way towards making dedicated health staff feel more valued, lift flagging morale, and help turn the tide on employers’ staffing problems.”
That is not a drop in the ocean.

Robert Halfon: I strongly welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced. He will have heard my question to the Prime Minister earlier, and he will acknowledge that Harlow Hospital is out of special measures and that this pay award is much deserved by staff. In the future, will he look at the particular problem we face—we are just outside London, and a lot of staff work in London, which makes it harder for Harlow Hospital to recruit—and perhaps think again about the pay scales?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do that and to congratulate the staff at my right hon. Friend’s hospital, which he has long championed and whose pressures and needs he has highlighted assiduously. To come out of special measures is a huge achievement. I have recorded a video message, but I am happy to say in the House how proud we all are of what the staff have achieved. I also recognise the capital issues at the hospital and the fact that the building is not fit for purpose.

Tim Farron: The minimum amount that nurses in south Cumbria will have lost since the pay freeze is £4,306. Given that the average house price in my constituency is 10 times the value of the average nurse’s salary, Members will understand the huge impact that there has been on retention and recruitment. The rise is therefore deserved, welcome and overdue, but without a long-term plan for funding health and social care, this announcement will not be trusted, so does the Secretary of State not agree that we need a new deal to refresh Beveridge’s vision for the 21st century, and should we not be prepared to be honest with the British people and say that this will involve a modest but clear increase in taxation?

Jeremy Hunt: I disagree that the deal will not be believed—it is a concrete deal. NHS staff still have to vote for it, but the Government have committed to significant rises in pay. I agree, however, that we will need to find the best way of getting more money into the NHS and social care system as we face the pressures of an ageing population.

Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State expand a little on what he briefly said about flexibility of working hours and family bereavement among NHS staff? After this urgent question, will he kindly give a short tutorial to those of us with an interest in defence on his successful techniques for extracting £5 billion from the Treasury for a Department that urgently needs it?

Jeremy Hunt: I would not dare to talk about an area outside my own Department’s responsibilities, even to such an eminent person as my right hon. Friend.
Flexible pay is at the heart of what we need to do differently in the NHS. This is really about two types of NHS worker. First, many people find that the shift patterns in the NHS are very unpredictable. Every six weeks their lives are turned upside down as they are given a new set of times when they have to work. People want regularity and predictability, and we do not offer that at the moment, which makes life much tougher for those who are trying to achieve a work-life balance. Secondly, we make life hard for people who want to do extra shifts at the last minute. Both those factors are important, and they will be helped by this new pay deal.

Paul Sweeney: We have already heard about the 14% real-terms fall in NHS staff pay since 2010. There have been eight long years of pay restraint, and this deal does not go far enough to offset that historic deficit.
The Secretary of State is having to deal with the massive problem of an ageing population and the need to increase the capacity of the NHS in order to deal with it. Does he agree that alienating an entire generation of junior doctors was not a productive way of achieving that?

Jeremy Hunt: We do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given but, in any event, he cannot say that the deal does not go far enough without asking why that has happened. It happened because in 2008 we had the worst financial recession since the second world war, which was made an awful lot worse by the Labour Government’s loss of financial discipline. What I think is most disturbing for people in the NHS is that the hon. Gentleman’s party seems set on repeating the same mistake.

Rachel Maclean: I join colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend’s announcement. Will he join me in congratulating the nurses and doctors at the Alexandra hospital in Redditch on their incredibly hard work in keeping people safe and well cared for throughout the winter? Following yesterday’s announcement about new medical schools and nursing apprenticeships, his announcement today represents a real, solid investment in our NHS workforce that will enable us to open the urgent care centre at the Alex for which I have been campaigning.

Jeremy Hunt: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend’s strong argument for an urgent care centre, and I commend the very hard work of the staff at the Alex. I know that the new leadership at the trust is making progress and turning things around, and I hope that what has happened at Harlow today will be an inspiration.
What we are doing today is significant. The extra doctors and nurses whom we are training, and a pay deal that is intended to boost recruitment in the NHS, demonstrate our recognition that we need a significant increase in capacity in the NHS and the social care system if we are to ensure that every older person gets the care that they really need, which is what the Government want.

Chris Elmore: May I press the Secretary of State a little further on Barnett consequentials? Will he confirm that there will be consequentials for each of  the three years of the pay rise? Will he also welcome the Welsh Government’s introduction of a living wage in the NHS in 2014, and does he recognise that NHS and social care spending is higher in Wales than it is in England? That is a matter of fact.

Jeremy Hunt: What is a matter of fact is that the NHS in Wales would have £1 billion more if the Welsh Government had matched the increases that have taken place in England, and that Welsh patients waiting for both elective and emergency care are 40% more likely to wait too long.

Julian Knight: I have the great good fortune to be married to a former renal nurse, and she tells me regularly that much of retention is about work-life balance, training and interactions with management. Will the Secretary of State tell us what progress he is making in those areas?

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to do so. Work-life balance is something that we need to handle a lot better. I think we have been slow to recognise that today’s NHS staff are likely to live in households in which both partners are working, and that juggling life and work has therefore become much more complex than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The reform of the increments system means that there will be more focus on training and skills, which will be much more motivating for NHS staff, so I hope that my hon. Friend’s wife is pleased.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the Government’s change of heart in awarding a pay rise to our hard-working NHS staff. May I pursue the point made by the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)? Our Committee’s report emphasised that continuing professional development was key to the retention of nurses. It was not clear to me from what the Secretary of State said whether money would be ring-fenced—sadly, the amount has been cut—to ensure that nurses can access CPD not only in the NHS, but in social care settings.

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise that there have been pressures on the CPD budget, and that is because we have made increasing the number of nurse training places our main priority. We have increased that by 25%, which has meant that difficult decisions have had to be made about other parts of the budget. I can reassure the hon. Lady, however, that I think that CPD will continue to have a vital role, and we will need to return to the issue.

Huw Merriman: Efficiency and productivity deserve to be rewarded, and, given the 16% increase in emergency admissions, NHS professionals have certainly earned that. In the light of this new working relationship, does the Secretary of State envisage staff and the Government working in partnership to challenge patients to be more respectful to those who work in the health service?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He often raises difficult issues that need to be talked about in this place. We all know that the vast majority of patients are incredibly grateful for the care that they receive from NHS professionals, but occasionally that does not happen. Occasionally people use services  that they do not need to use, which creates pressures and denies other patients what they do need. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that as we start to expand NHS capacity, we need the public to understand their responsibilities as well.

Sylvia Hermon: I am happy to welcome the statement, but let me take a moment to remind the Secretary of State that we in Northern Ireland have not had a functioning Assembly for 14 months, and we have had no Health Minister for 14 months. How can the hard-working staff members of the NHS in Northern Ireland benefit from the new pay deal? Will the Secretary of State commit himself to speaking to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whom I am delighted to see sitting on the Front Bench, to ensure that NHS staff in Northern Ireland see the benefits of the deal?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady speaks eloquently and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was listening to her comments. It is a matter of great sadness that nurses’ pay has fallen behind in Northern Ireland, not because the money was not available, but simply because the Administration were not in place to implement changes. I know that my right hon. Friend will do everything she can.

Helen Whately: I welcome the proposed pay rise, especially the increase for the lowest paid in the NHS. Nurses at my local hospitals tell me that as well as a pay rise, what they really want is flexibility in relation to things that happen in their lives, so I particularly welcome that aspect of the proposal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that flexibility and investment in training will enable NHS employers to show their appreciation for the valuable contribution that each individual member of staff makes to the care of patients?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with a great deal of knowledge. Let me give an example of something we are doing that is not part of this deal, but which backs up what she says. We are prioritising the use in every hospital of an effective e-rostering system that enables people to book the shifts that they want on their phones and to change them very easily through a modern IT system. That makes an enormous difference to the control that they have over the hours they work, and I think that, in combination with the new deal, that will make a big difference.

Ellie Reeves: The NHS is now short of 100,000 staff because of the Government’s neglect of the NHS workforce. When the Government scrapped the nursing bursary, they said that that would lead to the training of more nurses, but UCAS data shows that since then the number of applications has fallen by 15,000. Will the Government now commit themselves to reintroducing the bursary?

Jeremy Hunt: What the hon. Lady chose not to tell the House was that since the time of the last Labour Government, we now have 5,500 more nurses and 15,000 more doctors in the NHS, and there has been a 9% rise in NHS funding. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Secretary of State talking about vacancies from a sedentary  position. I hope that he will also welcome the 25% increase in the number of doctors and nurses whom we are training precisely so that we can fill those vacancies.

Craig Tracey: I welcome the announcement, and it was great to see the Secretary of State meeting staff at my excellent local hospital, the George Eliot, recently. What will be particularly welcomed is the hugely progressive nature of this deal, with its focus on the lowest paid. What exactly does it mean for those at the very bottom of the pay scale?

Jeremy Hunt: For people starting off in nursing there will be a rise of about £2,000, which will make a very big difference, and we are increasing the minimum starting salary for anyone working in the NHS by about £2,500. This is completely in line with the Government’s policies over a whole range of areas. We have prioritised increasing the amount people can earn tax-free before paying any income tax at all. We have taken millions of people out of income tax. That is because this Government are committed to helping the lowest paid.

Gareth Snell: It has taken six years, but finally the Health Secretary has come to the conclusion that Labour Members reached many years ago: the pay cap is a folly. I thank Sara Gorton and the team at Unison and the GMB for campaigning on this matter for years, standing up not just for clinical staff, but for the support staff without whom our NHS simply would not function. Given that the offer in the second and third years of the pay deal is below inflation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that this is not a one-off deal to hide the fact that he is failing in his job, and is instead a long-term engagement to achieve proper pay in our NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman thinks the pay freeze was a folly, why does he support policies that would increase borrowing by £350 billion and potentially lead to another financial crisis and pay freeze?

Nigel Huddleston: I welcome the announcement and believe that it is a further obvious commitment by the Government to the NHS and NHS staff. I will continue to have a debate on whether the record spending is enough, as, personally, I would support more spending, but does the Secretary of State share my disappointment and anger that there continue to be campaigners and campaigning organisations that, for whatever reasons and motivations, spread the untruth that there have been cuts in spending in the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right. Just to reassure him, I do not think that any Health Secretary would ever say the NHS does not need additional funding. He makes an important point, and the truth is that at the 2010 election there was one party that wanted to cut funding for the NHS. It was the Labour party, and we stopped it.

Vicky Foxcroft: When my sister broke her neck only weeks ago, I saw at first hand the pressures that NHS staff are under. They start shifts early and finish shifts late, and there are not the right staffing levels on wards. Those staff were amazing, however. The NHS is now short of 100,000 staff because  of this Government’s neglect of the NHS workforce. Will the Government apologise to all NHS workers for undervaluing them for so long?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady needs to look at the facts before making those kinds of claims. Let us look at what has happened in the last five years—the period during which I have been Health Secretary. The numbers of qualified clinical staff have not gone down, but have gone up by 43,000. We are doing everything we can to increase the capacity of the NHS, and the hon. Lady should be welcoming that.

Michael Tomlinson: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I met representatives from the Royal College of Nursing in my constituency recently, and I am sure that they, too, will welcome this statement. Does this not show that, contrary to the assertion so often made by Labour, it is this Government and Secretary of State who are committed to long-term investment in our NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. The truth is that there is probably one thing that those on both sides of the House agree on: the long-term future of the NHS depends on long-term funding for the NHS. Sadly, there is one thing that only Conservative Members understand: to do that, we need a strong economy.

Tom Brake: I welcome the statement. Has the Secretary of State had time to assess the impact on retention and recruitment of EU citizens who work in the NHS? If he is feeling generous, may I remind him that St Helier Hospital is in need of £400 million?

Jeremy Hunt: I am aware of the estate issues at St Helier Hospital. I have seen them myself and know that that building is, in many areas, not fit for purpose. On EU citizens, the picture is mixed. We have seen a small decline in the number of EU nurses, but overall the number of EU citizens working in the NHS has gone up by 3,200 since the referendum. That has happened because the Government and NHS staff have made a huge effort to reassure them of just how valued they are and that we want them to stay.

POINTS OF ORDER

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a parliamentary written answer on 12 January 2018 the Minister for the Armed Forces stated:
“The UK will remain completely committed to European defence and security after we leave the European Union”,
yet 48 hours ago it was announced that the UK is withdrawing from providing the battle group in 2019. Is there a way in which I can hold the Government to account on what appears to be a substantial policy change, which has not been announced in this place but has in fact been announced as a result of a leak to a newspaper?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he planned to raise this matter, and I know that he has been vigorous in pursuing the issue through parliamentary questions. As he knows, there are many other routes that he can pursue, including, I am sure, forthcoming Government statements on, for example, the European Council, but his concern will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and I am sure it will be taken back to the Department concerned.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. While we are on the subject of the European Union and defence, may I seek an assurance that Mr Speaker will not be emulating the example of the President of the European Commission, who has just sent a grovelling letter of congratulations to Vladimir Putin on his election victory, and that he will note instead how fortunate we are to be able to depend on NATO when the security and defence of this country is at stake?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I suspect that the Speaker will have very firm ideas, no doubt taking some advice from the right hon. Gentleman himself, about how he will respond to that election.

Thelma Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Health questions yesterday I asked the Secretary of State when the independent reconfiguration panel report about the future of Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, our local hospital, would be presented. The response was that it would be produced “in due course”, and the same response was given to my written question of last month. May I have clarification about the definition of “due course”: is that within a week, within a month, or after the next local elections?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter, which I will answer now rather than in due course. I know that it can be rather frustrating for Members when Ministers say no more than “in due course” when asked when something is going to happen; however,  I am afraid that the content of Ministers’ answers is for Ministers, not the Chair, and I cannot attempt to define what was meant by that. Again, though, I would say  that the hon. Member has made her dissatisfaction clear, and it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and, I hope, will be reported back.

BILLS PRESENTED

Northern Ireland (regional Rates and Energy) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General and Mr Shailesh Vara presented a Bill to make provision about the regional rate in Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2019; and amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 188).

Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney General and Mr Shailesh Vara presented a Bill to confer power on the Secretary of State to determine salaries and other benefits for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly in respect of periods when there is no Executive.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 187).

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY (WELFARE OF WOMEN)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 to make provision about the welfare of women undergoing any medical, surgical or obstetric treatment services provided for the purpose of assisting such women to carry children; and for connected purposes.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to begin by thanking right hon. and hon. female Members from throughout the Chamber for supporting the Bill, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my right hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who herself worked in a fertility clinic before joining us in the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, 26 years ago the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established to regulate the new frontier of medicine brought forth by in vitro fertilisation. The sector has subsequently transformed into a multimillion-pound industry, with more than 5 million children having been conceived thanks to IVF. Because of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the HFEA rightly works to protect the welfare of children before providing IVF treatment, and it is fundamental that this should continue. Notably, however, there is an absence of provisions in the Act regarding the welfare of the women who are undergoing the treatment. As a result of the huge increase in the use of IVF, not only by women who have problems conceiving but by those such as single women and same-sex couples, we have a dawning understanding of the prevalence of cancer diagnosis among women who have gone through IVF. In the light of the overwhelming evidence that drug protocols can cause women extremely adverse health effects, including a risk to life, I believe that there is a clear case for amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to ensure the welfare of women.
One of the main health risks to women undergoing IVF is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, or OHSS. It is triggered by the over-stimulation of the ovaries caused by hormones injected during IVF treatment. However, as the Act does not explicitly make stipulations about the welfare of the woman, the HFEA is unable to  monitor or regulate guidelines on clinical practices relating to the administration of drugs and dosages during IVF treatment. There is therefore a total lack of monitoring and control of the drugs given to women.
One third of women undergoing IVF suffer from some form of OHSS. In severe cases, there is clinical evidence of fluid in the abdomen and chest, a reduction in urine output, a significant disturbance of blood biochemistry and a thickening of the blood, with an imbalance of the clotting system. It can even be critical, causing a woman to have renal shutdown and the fluid in her abdomen and chest to be so severe that it causes her to have respiratory distress syndrome. I have chosen to describe the symptoms graphically because I believe that all Members should be aware of the devastating nature of this preventable condition. A staggering 3% to 8% of women will suffer from moderate to severe OHSS during a cycle of treatment, and it can be life-threatening. Scientific studies have even indicated about three deaths per 100,000 cycles of stimulated IVF treatments. Let me clarify that: critical OHSS has caused women to die right here in the UK, but the outdated measures in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act prohibit us from understanding the true scale of the issue and preventing it in the first place.
It is accepted that almost all women with critical or severe OHSS, and some with moderate OHSS, will require hospital admission, and current regulation dictates that this should be reported as an adverse incident to the HFEA. The HFEA should then work in collaboration with the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency on dealing with the adverse effects of drugs used in IVF treatment. So clinics are required to report to the HFEA any cases of severe OHSS occurring as a result of treatment, but there is powerful evidence of wholesale under-reporting. More than 67,000 cycles of IVF are carried out in the UK each year. A shocking investigation by the Daily Mail last year found that 836 emergency hospital admissions for severe OHSS had occurred during 2015, even though the HFEA database reported just 60. Furthermore, the evidence is clear that collecting more than 15 eggs during IVF indicates a significant risk of OHSS, yet the HFEA recorded that in 2012 more than 3,400 women had more than 20 eggs collected.
Such widespread evidence of the welfare of women being compromised is deeply disappointing, because OHSS is a preventable condition. There are reliable predictors that allow the adjustment of the dose of stimulation to prevent the vast majority of cases, with such treatment being equally successful in terms of live birth rates. That means that lowering the stimulating dose is a win-win situation for the woman, whose wellbeing is protected, and for the NHS, which does not have to foot the bill for treating emergency admissions.
When I brought this issue to Parliament in 2016, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health stated that women were warned of the potential risks before starting treatment. However, we are dealing with a vulnerable group of women who are desperate for a family and who are easily exploited by being told that the side effects of high ovarian stimulation are the price of success. That simply is not true. These are completely avoidable side effects that changes to the Act can and must prevent.
OHSS is not the only danger to women undergoing IVF. The use of off-label intravenous immunology drugs, which are potentially harmful and of no proven benefit, comes with a health warning from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The HFEA collects no data on what drugs and drug dosages are administered to women undergoing IVF because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act gives it no authority to do so. Furthermore, because of restrictions based on confidentiality for couples undergoing fertility treatment, the HFEA has no power to monitor the consequences of current treatments on the short-term and long-term health of the women. That has to change, because a voluntary reporting system simply does not work. Let me make this clear: this condition is life-threatening, and it is entirely preventable for the tens of thousands of women undergoing fertility treatment every single year. The lack of concern about the welfare of women during IVF treatment is a scandal that cannot continue to exist.
I should like to summarise the crucial amendments that I believe must be made to the Act. There should be an explicit added commitment to safeguard the welfare of women. The HFEA should be required to collect information about all drugs and dosages administered to women during IVF treatment and early pregnancy. Finally, the Act should be amended to link the HFEA registry with hospital, cancer and death registers, to enable the accurate recording and publication of the links between IVF treatment and incidences of severe OHSS, cancer and mortality among women. I sincerely hope that the House will recognise its duty to ensure that IVF continues to enable the celebration of new life, but not at the expense of the women who are undergoing it. It is 26 years since the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was created, and it is high time that its inadequacies were reformed and the welfare of women recognised.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Siobhain McDonagh, Joan Ryan, Karen Lee, Emma Hardy, Layla Moran, Dame Caroline Spelman, Julie Elliott, Caroline Flint, Rosie Cooper, Ms Karen Buck, Dame Margaret Hodge and Liz Kendall present the Bill.
Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed (Bill 189).

Laurence Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to Northern Ireland. Ordinarily, it is ruled out of order for Members to raise devolved issues, such as schools, hospitals and other important matters. However, given that the Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland have not sat for more than 14 months, would it be in order to raise such matters in the Chamber in future during questions or debates?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise that matter. In the first instance, I suggest that he discusses the issue with the Table Office. While the fundamental principle is that questions must relate to ministerial responsibilities, how that is interpreted is affected by the pattern of ministerial answers, and it may be that the changing circumstances mean that there will be some further changes.

NORTHERN IRELAND (REGIONAL RATES AND ENERGY) BILL (BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill:

TIMETABLE

(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

TIMING OF PROCEEDINGS AND QUESTIONS TO BE PUT

(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill), and
(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.

CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS

(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.

SUBSEQUENT STAGES

(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.

REASONS COMMITTEE

(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.

MISCELLANEOUS

(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Karen Bradley.)

NORTHERN IRELAND (REGIONAL RATES AND ENERGY) BILL

Second Reading

Karen Bradley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I start by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) an early happy birthday because I know that it is coming up. I am afraid that I will not be able to celebrate with him, but I wanted to wish him a happy birthday in the Chamber. I am sure that we will all join in wishing the former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee a happy birthday.
As with the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill that we introduced yesterday, I stand today to ask the House to give a Second Reading to legislation that is a necessary intervention to safeguard public services and finances in the ongoing absence of a Northern Ireland Executive and sitting Assembly. I covered the broader political situation in my statement last week, but it will be helpful to remind the House of the context in which we are taking forward this Bill today.
During the past 14 months, in the absence of an Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland, the UK Government have worked tirelessly to facilitate the restoration of devolved government. It had been my firm hope that a new Executive would be in place to complete its own 2017-18 estimates process and to set their own budget for 2018-19, as well as to extend the current cost capping on the renewable heat incentive scheme. It was therefore with disappointment that I had to bring forward yesterday’s Bill to put 2017-18 public spending on a legal footing.
As I set out in my statement on 8 March, there are acute pressures across public services to be addressed in 2018-19, which is why I took steps that day to provide clarity and certainty on Northern Ireland’s finances for 2018-19. The Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill seeks to build on that certainty, delivering on this Government’s commitment to protect public services and to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland. Today, the focus is on taking forward key steps to provide support for public services and sustainable finances in Northern Ireland as we move into the next financial year.

Anne Main: Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on something that the public may not be aware of? There are key decisions that ought to be taken and priorities that ought to be set, but that cannot happen because there is no ministerial grouping in Northern Ireland to make such decisions.

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are decisions that ideally would be taken by Ministers sitting in Stormont as part of a devolved Government, but that has not been the case for 14 months. I am therefore taking steps today, reluctantly, and it is pressing that we are able to proceed. I hope that we can get devolved government in Stormont again in the near future, because that is the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland to be able to take advantage of the available opportunities.
Clause 1 addresses the collection of the regional rate, which represents more than 5% of the total revenue available to the Northern Ireland Executive. With a devolved Government in place, it would be set via an affirmative rates order in the Assembly, enabling bills to be issued in 10 instalments, providing certainty to ratepayers and allowing various payment reliefs to be applied. Last year, it fell to the UK Government to take that step in the absence of an Executive. When I took office as Secretary of State earlier this year, I had sorely hoped that it could be one of the first acts of a new devolved Government and Assembly and would not fall again to this Government and this Parliament to set the regional rates. That will not be possible before the next financial year, and it would be unacceptable to allow uncertainty to linger in the meantime until a new Executive is formed.
While we are clear that it is a devolved matter, we are also clear that only the UK Government and Parliament can take such action to secure the interests of individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland. This Bill therefore sets out rates, in pence-per-pound terms, for both domestic and non-domestic properties. For non-domestic properties, the rate reflects a 1.5% inflationary increase. For domestic properties, the rate would be raised by inflation—1.5%—plus 3%, as I set out in my budget statement on  8 March.

Sylvia Hermon: I am sure the Secretary of State would like to confirm that she is well aware that the general public in Northern Ireland will not be one bit pleased that, when rates are going up in Northern Ireland, it is expected that Members of the Legislative Assembly will get a salary increase from 1 April, unless the Secretary of State exercises the power that she will take later this afternoon. Will she confirm that she will cut their salaries and eliminate any increase before 1 April?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady is pre-empting the speech that I will make later—I hope not in six hours’ time—when I will be legislating to bring powers to this Parliament to vary the rates of MLA pay. I am doing so this week to ensure that it happens before the start of the new financial year, so that no pay increases go through. I well understand her strong feeling, which is one that has been expressed to me by many in Northern Ireland.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will know that the Assembly Commission, which comprises all the parties, recommended that she should take a power to ensure that the pay increase would not go ahead. That is the view of all the political parties in Northern Ireland. It is a sensible step, and we welcome what the Secretary of State is saying.

Karen Bradley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that it was cross-party, cross-community view that the pay rise should not go ahead, which is why we are legislating today.
Returning to domestic rates, I well understand the concerns that people will have, but this important measure will address a hole in the budget for 2018-19, so that public services can still be delivered. In my view, the measure represents an important contribution to delivering  a sustainable budget picture for 2018-19. As the budget consultation launched by the Northern Ireland civil service last year pointed out, there are important conversations to be had about the right balance in Northern Ireland between revenue raising and spending efficiencies, and that document discussed rises in regional rates of as much as 10% above inflation. Having reflected on conversations with the parties and stakeholders more broadly, and having understood the pressures on key services, I concluded that it was right that we ask households to pay a little more in order to help to protect and preserve public services.
However, I also considered that we had to balance that increase at the right level. That is why I propose a 3% on top of inflation rise—less than £1 a week for the average household—to help to address pressures in health, education and elsewhere. It is also why I have held business rates in line with inflation—within a broader budget envelope that allows the safeguarding of the small business rate relief—to keep a focus on the growth that Northern Ireland needs to see. That forms an important part, along with the flexibilities that we set out in last week’s budget statement, of helping Northern Ireland to live within its means at a challenging time, maintaining the UK Government’s responsibilities to uphold good governance in Northern Ireland.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree, in addition to the information that she is imparting to the House, that the onus falls on district councils as well because they set a district rate? If they are effective and efficient, the increase will be even less than she has indicated.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We all know that local government finances operate at both district and regional levels, and he is absolutely right to make the point that some of the regional rates paid by households go to district councils. It is important that they reflect the efficiencies that we are asking the rest of the civil service to reflect. As the Bill makes clear, nothing that we do would cut across the continuing right of the Executive to set a rate by order in the usual way. Should a devolved Government be restored in Stormont, they would therefore be able to make an Executive decision about the regional rate.
Clause 2 deals with the administration of Northern Ireland’s renewable heat incentive scheme, which was established in 2012 to support efforts to increase uptake in the use of renewable energy. However, due to incorrect assumptions about boiler size and usage, tariff levels and lack of cost controls led to substantial excess payments. Over the 20-year lifespan of the scheme, the projected overspends were well over £500 million, with £27 million of overspend in the 2016-17 year alone, putting the sustainable finances of the Northern Ireland Executive at significant risk.
As colleagues will be aware, the administration of the scheme and the circumstances that led to errors in its administration are subject to an ongoing public inquiry. One of the final acts of the last Executive was to introduce regulations in January last year that put in place robust cost controls. Those made sure that the costs were sustainable. They were put in place only for a year, to allow for longer-term consideration of the scheme as a whole.

Sylvia Hermon: Again, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Will she confirm for the benefit of people in Northern Ireland in particular the savings to the public purse as a result of the Bill? How much would it cost without a cap on the RHI scheme for another 12 months, compared with the measures in the Bill?

Karen Bradley: As I have said, the estimated saving for 2016-17 was £27 million. I assume a similar sort of saving this year. The total saving as a result of the cost capping is in the region of £450 million.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State rightly said that this was a continuation of measures that were put in place by Simon Hamilton, the DUP economy Minister, and which saved money last year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Bill replicates the excellent legislation introduced by Mr Hamilton?

Karen Bradley: I can confirm that that is the case. We are following the same cost capping as was put in place by the Executive and Simon Hamilton as economy Minister. The right hon. Gentleman will know the restrictions placed on this Parliament in terms of what we can do with changes, and we are very much guided by decisions taken in the last Executive. He will also know that since then there has not been an Executive to undertake that broader consideration of the right energy policy for Northern Ireland. We are now at the point where the existing cost controls are due to expire. If that happened, there would be no legal basis, not only for maintaining the current cost cap but for paying all those who receive payments under the scheme and whose installations were accredited before November 2015. Neither of these would be acceptable outcomes, nor would it be suitable for the Northern Ireland civil service to administer payments on an extra-statutory basis, which would create unnecessary legal uncertainty for all concerned.
That is why clause 2 ensures that the present cost controls, and the legal basis for payments, can continue for the 2018-19 financial year. As with the 2017 regulations, there is a sunset provision that expires after one year. This is a devolved policy matter, and it is right that the longer-term approach is one for a restored Executive to decide. In the meantime, I am assured that the Northern Ireland civil service will undertake detailed analysis to enable a new Executive to consider the right course for the future.
In summary, this is a modest Bill doing two discrete things. In setting a regional rate and extending the cost controls of the RHI scheme, it upholds our responsibilities to ensure good governance, and to safeguard public services and finances in Northern Ireland. It does so in a way that continues our approach of intervening only as necessary to meet those aims, and only at a point at which it is critical that the measures are taken forward. I hope that colleagues across the House agree that it is important we now make progress to see these measures passed into law to put Northern Ireland on its strongest financial footing for the year ahead. The UK Government shall continue to meet our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland. To that end, I commend the Bill to the House.

Owen Smith: The Secretary of State is right that this is a modest Bill with relatively few clauses and few substantive measures. I thank her and her office for providing me with a draft copy yesterday evening, but it is a pretty poor showing that the rest of the House had precisely 10 minutes to look at the Bill before debating its contents, however modest they are. That does not strike me as a terribly long time to look at a measure that increases taxes on 1.8 million people in this country.
We support the Bill. As the Secretary of State said, it is a necessary measure to allow councils to raise the regional rate. It legislates in an area of clearly devolved competence, and it sets the regional rate at about 4.5%, which is above inflation. My first question—I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer it at the end of the debate—is, how did the Government arrive at that figure? Was it discussed with political parties or with the Northern Ireland civil service, or, indeed, with local councils in Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State could have set a lower or a higher rate—how did she reach that figure?
Will the Secretary of State explain the cash impact on households in Northern Ireland? The explanatory notes are scant, so we do not have an impact assessment, and I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland knows the net effect on average households. It would be useful to learn that.
The RHI measure was a poorly drawn piece of legislation. It is right that we are extending the cap again today. As the Secretary of State said, the liabilities for the taxpayer were potentially £500 million—some people have even said £700 million—so it is absolutely right that we should legislate to mitigate that figure. We are amending the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, which were laid in the Northern Ireland Assembly, passed and amended there. It is Northern Ireland legislation, and we support its further amendment today. However, that raises an important question relating to yesterday’s debate that is vital in the halfway-house period—the limboland—for Northern Ireland. We have had 14 months without an Assembly or Executive, during which Ministers have not been accountable to people, either in Northern Ireland or in the House. We have legislation on issues that fall squarely within the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly when the Government choose to introduce them, but there are other issues on which the Government choose not to introduce measures. Yesterday, I mentioned the historical institutional abuse inquiry compensation scheme and the prospect of a pension for people who were severely disabled and injured in the troubles.
I was troubled by the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my question, in which she explained why she could not legislate on those things:
“Constitutionally, the inquiry”—
the HIA inquiry—
“was set up by the Executive and reported to the Executive. Unfortunately, the Executive were unable to take decisions on the recommendations before they collapsed…he”—
meaning me—
“will understand that the constitutional implications of the Westminster Parliament or Government taking a decision about something set up by a devolved institution mean that such decisions are not to be taken lightly.”—[Official Report, 20 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 204.]
I completely accept that, but the Secretary of State is taking a decision—I presume not lightly—to legislate in other areas of devolved competence, including MLA pay, later today. We need to understand why it is deemed permissible to legislate in certain areas but not in others.
To that end, yesterday evening I commissioned the House of Commons Library and an independent Queen’s counsel to provide legal advice to the House, and I will happily place those items in the Library later today. I asked them to explain what the difference might be, constitutionally and legislatively, between those two areas. The House of Commons Library agreed with what I assumed would be the fairly standard interpretation, which is that there is no constitutional reason why the Secretary of State cannot legislate on historical institutional abuse or on the victims’ pension—the pension for the severely injured and disabled. The Library says:
“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament can legislate with regard to any matter whatsoever in relation to Northern Ireland, relying on the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty.”
It goes on:
“If the Assembly is unable to introduce legislation, UK Government Ministers may decide that it is either necessary or expedient to ask Parliament to do so.”
Of course, they may decide it is not politically expedient to do so or not timely to introduce those things. That is what we are dealing with here—

Karen Bradley: rose—

Owen Smith: I hope that when the Secretary of State intervenes she will explain that.

Karen Bradley: I wanted to make the point that although, constitutionally, this Parliament can legislate on any matters regarding the United Kingdom, where a matter had been devolved we would be undermining the devolution settlement—that is the point. It would be extraordinary for this Parliament to decide to legislate, unilaterally, where, for example, an inquiry such as this was set up by the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Government. We do not take these things lightly and we need to give them great consideration, albeit I have enormous sympathy with the victims, in both cases.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I was in the Home Office at the time we set up the inquiry on institutional abuse across England and Wales. We carefully considered, and had many debates in the House on, whether the issues in Northern Ireland and the existing Hart inquiry should be brought into that inquiry, but the decision was taken that they should not, because the Executive had already set up the Hart inquiry.

Owen Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for that intervention, but she cannot have her cake and eat it. She cannot argue that it would undermine the devolution settlement to intervene and legislate in areas of devolved competence—for example, on the HIA or the pension for those who have been severely disabled—and then do so. She is doing precisely that today on the renewable heat incentive scheme, which was introduced in the Assembly, by the Assembly, for Northern Ireland, and on the regional rates, which is an area to do with local government that is entirely devolved to the Assembly in Belfast. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. One cannot speak out of both sides of one’s mouth on this issue, and I fear that that is what the Government are seeking to do.

Andrew Murrison: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with great interest. Where would he draw the line? Does he appreciate the dilemma the Government face in respect of the micromanagement and microgovernance of Northern Ireland, and dealing with the discrete and modest legislative vehicles—the Secretary of State made that clear—that we have to have to ensure that there is decent governance there? He has not said where he would draw that line and perhaps it might be timely if he did so.

Owen Smith: I am glad I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because he understands Northern Ireland and understands fully that this is delicate. I completely accept that the Secretary of State is in an invidious position on these conventions, but to an extent they are just that—conventions—with the key one being the Sewel convention, whereby, ordinarily, this Westminster Government do not legislate on areas of devolved competence. However, there are instances where it is morally or fiscally necessary to intervene and the Government do intervene.
It is, in essence, for the Government to choose where the line is set, but there are moral and fiscal imperatives in respect of those people who are in the HIAI and those who have been severely injured, and who ought to see the Government intervene on their behalf. If the Government were to do that, it would in no way undermine the devolution settlement because the precedent is already set, as we are seeing today on the RHI and as we have seen on other areas of legislation. Nor would it undermine the peace process and the talks process, because there is widespread support for those things. Legal counsel supports my opinion—

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Owen Smith: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because I want to complete this point. I sought some support from KRW Law, a firm of lawyers at the Bar in Belfast. Its view is:
“There are three significant points which would support a conclusion that Parliament should in fact legislate”
particularly in respect of the HIA. It continued:
“(i) The Sewel Convention is a…convention, not a rule of law, and can be departed from for good reasons;
(ii) The constitutional obligation to avoid a vacuum in governance clearly has more weight in the present constitutional circumstances”
where we do not have an Assembly.
The hon. Gentleman raised that second point. The third was that the HIAI made a clear case for intervention. Therefore, I put it to the Secretary of State that there is clear precedent and legal support for her intervening to support some of the most vulnerable and damaged people, either under the terms of the abuse inquiry or in respect of those who have been physically disabled.
I raise the issue of the pension for those who were disabled and injured because they are here today—some are in the Gallery for today’s debate and some are meeting hon. Members from across the House. I think they would want to hear from the Secretary of State that she understands the nature of the issues they face.

Karen Bradley: rose—

Owen Smith: Before the Secretary of State intervenes, let me quote her own words to her. She has said that the Government have responsibilities to
“provide better outcomes for victims and survivors—the people who suffered most during the troubles.”—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 33.]
She has an opportunity to make good on those words and legislate, and I hope she is going to tell us right now that she will do so.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am at a loss to understand what the point being made has to do with the RHI or rates in Northern Ireland.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) is speaking to the Second Reading, and I am sure he is consistent and will ensure he sticks to that.

Owen Smith: I give way to the Secretary of State.

Karen Bradley: I want to clarify the difference between the two issues the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The HIAI—the Hart inquiry—was set up by the Executive and therefore, constitutionally, it is a matter for the members of the Executive to make a decision on its recommendations. The Hart inquiry reported to the Executive after they had collapsed and therefore they were unable to do that. That therefore gives a legal difficulty: what would the Executive have decided on those recommendations for this Parliament to try to second-guess?
On the victims of the troubles, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have made it clear that this Government are committed to setting up the institutions that were agreed under the Stormont House agreement. We are committed to consulting on how that is done and, as part of that, we will deal with all the issues regarding the victims of the troubles, because I agree with him that those people have been waiting far too long to see remedy for what they went through.

Owen Smith: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the intervention, and let me answer it and the point made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). She makes my point for me. She asks what the Executive decided in respect of the HIAI and the answer is we do not know. We know that they said they thought they ought to implement its findings in full—the said that just before the Assembly went down—so we have some clarity on that. Crucially, we do not know what the Executive would have decided in respect of the regional rate and we do not know whether the Assembly would have decided to change the terms of the cap on the RHI, yet we are legislating in this place, in this Bill, to change those things, without any knowledge as to what the Assembly would have done. So it precisely relevant to the business at hand—

Emma Little Pengelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Smith: I will give way in a moment. It is precisely relevant to the business at hand that we could be legislating under the same terms on these two issues  but are choosing not to do so for some reason, be it political expediency, timeliness or the fact there are less pressing financial reasons for doing so. Those people who are here today—there are people who were injured by either side in the troubles—having been in paralysis, having lost limbs or having lost livelihoods for a long, long time now, are in need of our support.
I know that the Secretary of State wishes to give that support, so I cannot understand, and do not think she has yet explained to the House, why it is not a moral imperative—and a financial imperative for those people—to introduce legislation to implement a pension for the severely injured, and to enact at the very least the relatively minor compensation arrangements that Sir Anthony Hart agreed under the HIAI.
The Secretary of State has the extra £1 billion that she managed to find for the Democratic Unionist party under the confidence and supply agreement, and part of that money could be allocated either to the victims of historical institutional abuse or to those who have suffered injury as a result of the troubles. That would be time well spent in the House, and nobody would reject or resent it. I do not believe for a moment that it would undermine either the Secretary of State’s efforts to get the peace process and the talks back on track, the Sewel convention or our desire to get the Assembly back up and running.

Deidre Brock: I shall confine my remarks to the Bill.
Yesterday, we were doing here what should have been done in Stormont, and today, we are doing here what should have been done in Stormont. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Bill will not be the most exciting legislation passed in this Session, although I also suspect that politicians in Northern Ireland might regard the renewable heat incentive scheme as a little contentious here and there. The scheme has produced a lot of heat—a fair amount of it political heat—and I am sure it will not fade into nothingness just yet. It is almost tempting to submit an amendment to the tariff to get a bit of debate going and get some heat up—almost, but not quite.
As we are where we were yesterday, I shall be very brief. I reiterate what was said yesterday: these decisions should be taken at Stormont; decisions on devolved issues should be taken in a devolved legislature or by Ministers in the devolved Administrations, rather than here or in Whitehall; and Stormont politicians should get their collective act together and get back to work.
My comments on the rationale for the fast-tracking of this legislation should be taken as read as being the same as my comments on yesterday’s legislation, although I again accept that there should be no further delay. We knew this was coming and the Bill should have been prepared and started in good time for it to be considered properly.
This Bill and the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill, which we will consider later, will pass serenely by, while we all watch with benign smiles. That is really not how legislation should be passed. My contribution today is short because this is something that we have to do, rather than a matter for policy debate.

Andrew Murrison: I am very sorry that the Bill has had to come before the House, but it is clearly necessary for the good governance of Northern Ireland for it to be passed. The Secretary of State was right to describe it as modest and discreet, which it clearly is, but I am concerned about incremental drift, which was why I was testing the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith). He sat down before I could intervene on him again, but the Opposition have certainly not said where their red line would be. He cited two examples, and there will be a lot of sympathy with his remarks—

Owen Smith: In case I did not, I meant to make it clear that I do not propose that we pursue other matters but absolutely do advocate that we legislate on historical institutional abuse and a pension for the injured.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has established his red line. I therefore assume that he would not wish to make decisions on, for example, the Commonwealth youth games, which has been cited by a Back Bencher from his own party. I am thinking that the Opposition red line on governance in Northern Ireland, in the absence of an Executive, exists somewhere between those options. That is extremely helpful and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I, too, am interested in the metrics that have gone into making the recommendations in the Bill. It would be useful to know how the figures were arrived at. The House is de facto responsible for the scrutiny of these tax rises. Of course, imposing or levying taxes is a defining feature of any system of governance, and that is what we are doing today with the greatest of reluctance, notwithstanding the fact that we did with the same thing last year. We need to do everything we can to ensure that this does not become a habit.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is currently considering the future-proofing of the governance of Northern Ireland and how its governance can be made more robust. In our consideration of the Bill, it strikes me that we might like to think about how district rates and regional rates operate and whether some other body might be able to levy them both. Of course, that rather unusual and peculiarly Northern Ireland feature does not apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, where the council tax prevails. Has the Secretary of State given any thought to how taxes of that sort might be invested in local government? Given that local government in Northern Ireland has changed dramatically recently and the number of councils has been reduced, we might possibly be able to levy such taxes for particular purposes through local government, rather than the Assembly—that is, if Stormont is going to continue to be unstable, which is an eventuality that I regret we will have to allow for in our thinking.

Sammy Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although it would be interesting to find a way to democratise the taxes, the regional rate is really used to finance central Government services, while the district rate is set by councils and used to finance local government? It might not be an accountable way to levy taxes if councils levy a rate for services that they do not deliver.

Andrew Murrison: I note that we voted earlier to allow six hours to debate these matters, so I am more than happy to hold forth at great length. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await my Select Committee’s report on this matter, which will deal partly with how, as an option for future-proofing governance in Northern Ireland, powers might be given to local government in future rather than to a body that I am afraid has shown itself to be unstable. It would clearly be inappropriate for any body to levy taxes for services for which that body was not responsible. That is the burden of the point that he was trying to make: the two clearly have to go together. I hope that my Select Committee report, which will be published in the next few weeks, will make that clear.
Although we have six hours to debate these matters, I am sure that we do not want to take that length of time.

Karen Bradley: indicated dissent.

Andrew Murrison: Well, if the Secretary of State wants me to go on, I certainly will, but I think I would rapidly lose the House’s sympathy. I clearly support the Bill, which is completely uncontroversial, given the grave situation.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Lady will lengthen my speech, but of course I give way to her.

Sylvia Hermon: I am delighted to lengthen the speech of a distinguished chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and, indeed, former Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. In both those capacities, the hon. Gentleman will have built up expertise on and a considerable body of knowledge about inward investment into Northern Ireland. The second part of the Bill is on the renewable heat incentive scheme. Has the hon. Gentleman come to any conclusions about the negative impact on inward direct investment into Northern Ireland as a consequence of the continued uncertainty and bad publicity surrounding that scheme?

Andrew Murrison: The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, I have not formed a view on that. The absence of the institutions at Stormont is most definitely acting to reduce confidence in Northern Ireland as a place to invest. Indeed, the hon. Lady will recall our discussion of the electricity market earlier. All I can say—it has been repeated at length in this place and will continue to be—is that the solution is clear, and it is the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has said he is not aware of any negative impact. The facts speak for themselves: Invest Northern Ireland has had its highest year of inward investment ever and unemployment is at an all-time low. It appears that, no matter how many people in Northern Ireland froth themselves up into a lather about how negative everything is, Northern Ireland continues to go forward because of the drive and thrift of good, hard-working people there.

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman has made that point time and again, and he is right to do so. I think the question was to do with the RHI, and I suspect that it has had a fairly small impact on the picture that he paints, and rightly so. He makes a good point, and it is  worth emphasising, that we in this place have a duty, in the absence of an Executive and an Assembly that should be doing this, to big up Northern Ireland as a destination for FDI and for a place in which to grow jobs and prosperity. He is absolutely right to say that the picture has been transformed in recent years in Northern Ireland. I think it is true to say also that the restoration of the Executive would do wonders for that continuing picture. We must do everything in our power to ensure that that Executive is up and running without any further delay. I commend the Secretary of State for all her hard work in that respect. With that in mind, I shall end my remarks.

Sammy Wilson: Just as we said yesterday, this is a necessary measure that the Secretary of State has brought forward. It will not be the last of the necessary measures that she will have to bring to this House. I do not take the same view as the shadow Secretary of State, who seems to think that he can decide on the measures that should be brought to this place by whom he sees in the Public Gallery. There will be other issues that come across his desk in the future, to which, I am sure, he will give equal importance. For example, when it comes to school building in Northern Ireland, does he want to see Northern Ireland schoolchildren left without the new schools for which there is the capital money, but no Minister to make the decisions? I could go on and on, as I did yesterday, but I will not give lots of other examples.
The fact of the matter is that when there is an absence of an Assembly and an absence of Ministers to make decisions and when civil servants are not confident to make those decisions, there will be a number of issues that have to come back to this House. That is the issue that the Government will have to grasp.
Let me turn now to the rates order—I will try to stick to the two issues before us today. [Interruption.] I notice, actually, that the shadow Secretary of State had very little to say about the rates and the increase in rates. That is because the increase has been kept at a very modest level. In fact, if we look at the record of the Assembly, we will see that the previous Finance Minister could not even bring himself to name a rates increase last year, so the previous Secretary of State had to do it. Again, this year, this Secretary of State has had to do it as well.
There was a genuine fear in Northern Ireland that, given what the civil servants were recommending in the options papers and the record of past direct-rule Ministers, we would see draconian increases in local taxation. In fact, one of the papers suggested a 10% increase, which would have been devastating for small businesses and certainly for hard-pressed households. I am pleased that the Secretary of State, after discussion with the DUP and other parties, has come to the conclusion that businesses should have only an inflationary increase. That is good news for many businesses. She may have to bring in subsequent legislation to extend the small business rates relief scheme, which is due to run out this year. That reduces the overheads of tens of thousands of businesses across Northern Ireland.
The other aspect of that scheme, which I am pleased to say was a DUP proposal and has been copied in part in other places in the United Kingdom, is that it shows how innovative the Assembly—when they were working—were when it came to looking at how to help businesses. I am glad to see that that proposal will be continued. It certainly is a big relief for many small businesses, as their biggest overhead was the rates. Of course, domestic households are paying more in real terms than they would have been before this measure, but, as the Secretary of State has pointed out, it is still less than £1 per household per week.
I suspect that one reason why the shadow Secretary of State did not talk about the rates increases was that, of course, he is ashamed of the record of the Labour party when it comes to the council tax and the rates on people in local areas here in the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister pointed out at Question Time, if a person lives in a Labour-controlled council, they are likely to pay £100 more in council tax than they would if they lived in a Conservative-controlled council. If a person lives in a DUP-controlled council, they will pay even less. That is a point worth noting. Perhaps the answer is that, instead of having a confidence and supply arrangement with the Conservatives, the DUP should be standing in local council areas in the rest of the United Kingdom to ensure that rate payers get good value for money. [Interruption.] That will have them shaking in their shoes. I am pleased that the protections have been kept in place.
Let me mention one other thing about the renewable heat incentive and the cap on the subsidies that will be available. Again, once it became obvious that there had been negligence in the way that the scheme was administered and that people were able to capitalise on the lack of controls, a DUP Minister stepped in to impose the cap, and I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has continued that cap in this legislation. May I just point out one thing? I am not trying to make excuses for the renewable heat incentive, but it was something that was started by an Administration here in Westminster. Devolved Administrations were encouraged to take it up, and the Northern Ireland Administration did so.
Much has been said about the lack of control, but it should be noted that the same lack of control still exists in GB. Let me give just one example. Under the previous Administration, Drax B power station, with coal mines just down the road, transferred to using wood pellets. Wood pellets, which devastate virgin forests in the US, are carried in ships across the Atlantic ocean and deposited and burned in a power station. The subsidy started at £250 million a year. This year, the subsidy will be more than £600 million a year. It is estimated that the subsidy could eventually rise to £1 billion a year.
Let me return to the Northern Ireland Administration. I am not trying to make excuses here, but the cost overrun and the lack of subsidy would have led to an expenditure of £450 million over 25 years. That was used as an excuse to bring down the Government in Northern Ireland. It was a shabby excuse made by a party that wanted to run away from its obligations to bring forward a budget, to make hard decisions about the past and to make difficult decisions about Brexit. It was used as an excuse, and the remedy, of course, was brought forward by a DUP Minister. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has continued to implement  that remedy. It is the right thing to do: public money should not be abused in that way. If public money should not abused in that way in Northern Ireland, equally, it should not be abused in that way in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is significant. The same attention has not been given to the lack of control in other parts of the United Kingdom from the same kind of scheme.
In conclusion, this is a necessary measure. We are pleased that it has been put through today. It gives certainty to finances in Northern Ireland. As the Secretary of State has said, about £1,000 million will be made available for public services as a result of the collection of the regional rates—whether domestic or business rates. That is important in delivering services in Northern Ireland, but as I pointed out yesterday, it is not sufficient simply to make the money available to Departments; there will be requirements in the future for Ministers to step in and give civil servants direction on how the money that we will collect as a result of this Bill should be spent.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I will make a few points about the Bill and pose a couple of questions to the Secretary of State. The well-made points of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will ring around Northern Ireland tonight, as questions certainly need to be answered.
Will the Secretary of State let us know what provision the Bill makes to consult the representative body of RHI owners? That is particularly important, as such a provision was previously included in the Northern Ireland arrangements. Although there have been court cases and all sorts of other activity, there has not yet been a meaningful consultation, and it would be useful if one were to take place. I encourage the Secretary of State to make provision for a consultation. It would be time well spent, and would help people who have put money into the scheme for all the right reasons, but now find themselves getting the rather shoddy end of the stick.
On the calculations that appear in the schedule to the Bill, will the Secretary of State let us know whether the Government intend to examine the payment caps as prices alter during the year ahead? I would be happy to write to the Secretary of State’s ministerial team to ask them to examine the payments and accept that just putting them on a long finger is not the right answer. The payments have to be calculated in a way that gives at least some profit to the people who have invested in the scheme. Many of my colleagues and I are now receiving numerous calls from our constituents who invested in good faith, took up a Government offer and did not abuse that offer, but are now being turned over financially as a result of the scheme. That is not at all acceptable.
There are also issues to do with how the whole matter is reported publicly. Indeed, hon. Members have mentioned some public reports and the ongoing inquiry, and we look forward to seeing the inquiry’s conclusions. However, it was publicly reported in our newspapers on 16 March—I was in the United States of America, so I did not have the opportunity to speak in the House on this matter—that Teri Clifton of Ofgem, who gave evidence to the inquiry, said that she recalled an interesting telephone call between myself and herself. The chairman of the inquiry, Sir Patrick  Coghlin, suggested to her that that was a very “intimidating” call. I take complete exception to that, not because of name-calling or accusations, but because of the facts.
The facts are that Teri Clifton alleged that I was part of a conference telephone call in November 2015 with a Mr and Mrs McNaughton, and representatives from Moy Park, Action Renewables and FG Plumbing and Heating. No such call took place. It is a lie to suggest that such a call took place. I was not involved in any conference call. Importantly, I understand—I have an email about this that I am happy to share with the Library so that it is on record for the House—that on 21 March 2016, my constituents, a company called Action Renewables and a company called FG Plumbing and Heating did make a call to Teri Clifton. I was not involved in that call and neither was the company, Moy Park. Whatever happened in that telephone conversation was frankly none of my business, as I was not involved in it.
This witness should be ashamed of herself for standing up and telling the press, or an inquiry, a calumny of the highest order—that a Member of Parliament was involved in a conference call when they were not. She should be brought back to the inquiry, put through the wringer and asked why she lied to an inquiry about such a matter. Importantly, the chairman of the inquiry, who put words in the mouth of a witness, should apologise to me personally for his conduct and his actions, as I do not take this at all well. I am happy to stand by and defend actions that I take, which is why I am an elected Member of this place, but I will not be lied about by Teri Clifton, the chairman of an inquiry, or newspapers in Northern Ireland. The chairman of the inquiry said the next day that we should not sensationalise matters, after he had gone out of his way to sensationalise matters about me. I take complete insult at his conduct and actions, and look forward to his apology.

Emma Little Pengelly: I shall speak briefly about this short and reasonably technical Bill. I will first touch on rates and the power being given to the Secretary of State to look at the issue. She has previously announced her intentions regarding these matters.
I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that I and my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist party firmly believe that the best place for these matters to be discussed and decided is in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by locally elected representatives there. Yesterday I mentioned the important role that the Assembly’s Committee for Finance plays in scrutinising such measures, talking to business and stakeholders, and trying give advice. The Committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly have a statutory role to give advice and to form policy, which is unusual within an elected body. That important role aids the cross-party power sharing arrangement for Northern Ireland. It is incredibly disappointing that we do not have that in place, and it is sad that we do not have the opportunity to look at these measures in that way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned the DUP’s approach to taxes in Northern Ireland. As I said yesterday, a number of former Ministers of Finance in the Northern Ireland  Assembly are now in this place. Regarding the year-on-year budget, the DUP made it clear that we are a party of low tax because we want to keep as much money as possible in the hands of hard-working and under-pressure households in Northern Ireland. We have looked at a range of measures to that end, including keeping rates low.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned some of the pressure regarding the increase in rates. I welcome the fact that the significant increases feared by some did not happen and that the Secretary of State consulted all the parties. I did not want any increase, because an increase will have an impact on those hard-working and under-pressure families, but I welcome the fact that, following consultation with the parties, it is not as significant as was initially suggested.
No firm details on rates were released to the Assembly by the last Minister of Finance, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, despite the Committee for Finance calling on him to do so. He did not bring forward the rates legislation in a timely way, which meant that the Secretary of State had to do so at a very late stage, on the collapse of the Assembly. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is not taking forward Máirtín Ó Muilleoir’s proposal to lift the cap on domestic rates. I have been contacted about this issue by many of my constituents who were particularly worried about the significant increases that they would have faced as a result. Without the cap, they would have been paying more in domestic rates than if they had lived in a house in London worth £1 million or £2 million. That would have been fundamentally unfair. I disagreed with that proposal by Sinn Féin and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has not taken it forward. It is important that there is fairness in relation to these matters across the United Kingdom.
We are of course aware that rates levels in Northern Ireland have traditionally been low. However, given what the Secretary of State has said about the devolved nature of these matters, as well as the very difficult position we find ourselves in and what has been said about the Sewel convention, I urge her to talk to local representatives and organisations in Northern Ireland to ensure that as we move forward through this difficult period, we continue to make sure that we keep costs low for our families in Northern Ireland.
The second aspect of the Bill deals with the renewable heat incentive. I welcome the Secretary of State continuing the cap on costs in relation to that scheme. We had considered this matter in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome the fact that my Assembly colleague, the then Economy Minister, Simon Hamilton, brought forward these measures to almost eliminate any overspend on the scheme. I want to put on record, as we did previously, my concern about the reporting of this issue. Many of the political parties in Northern Ireland, for political reasons, gave a very clear impression to the public of Northern Ireland that £500 million was gone—spent—and that that was it. That was not the case. Despite the fact that we said repeatedly that it was not money that has been spent but money that was projected to be spent, and that we gave a firm commitment to bring forward measures to mitigate that, as we did under the DUP’s ministership in the Department for the Economy—

Gregory Campbell: Does my hon. Friend agree that just over year ago there was the most outrageous and disgraceful calumny in Northern Ireland as regards the reporting on the RHI scheme? A small number of journalists repeated the untruth that the money had been spent—had already gone up in smoke—and exacerbated people’s fears unnecessarily, leading to the beginning of a state of crisis even before the Government fell?

Emma Little Pengelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree. Language was used to the effect that the money had turned to ash.
We have to be aware that many people do not get the detail of some of these schemes. They are not privy to the information that those who are delivering a scheme or have examined it may be privy to. The language used gave the clear impression to people—this was a misunderstanding—that the money had disappeared, but that was not the case. Yes, it is disappointing that there were flaws within the scheme. I welcome the fact that we moved, and moved quickly, to eliminate any overspend on the scheme—this measure will virtually eliminate that—and to protect public money. I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification about the projected cost saving of £450 million-plus over the lifetime of the scheme.
I welcome the fact that the regulations survived a legal challenge over the past year. That is an important point, because the situation caused concerns to be raised when we discussed it in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I welcome the fact that the courts looked at this and listened to the public interest. The Bill represents a continuance of those regulations. I urge the Secretary of State to consider implementing these mitigations on a more permanent basis, rather than their needing to being continued on a year-on-year basis. I understand that that was the intention prior to the collapse and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim indicated, that would have happened following consultation with all the relevant parties about putting measures on to a much firmer footing.
I was disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State did not eventually give way to me, despite indicating that he would do so. I was in fact rising to offer support for what he was saying. I think that my record shows that I might have come across as a little critical in some of my interventions on the hon. Gentleman, but I have always tried to be informative as opposed to critical. I was going to tell him that the WAVE campaigners on pensions for severely injured victims of the troubles are over here at the moment. Along with my DUP colleagues and our party leader, I had the opportunity to welcome them to the House of Commons last night to speak to them about this issue in some detail.
I have been supporting those individuals and encouraging them to speak to as many people as possible about this issue. I extend my thanks to those Members who have met or will meet them, including the Scottish National party shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Such meetings are very valuable, because they have a very powerful story to tell. I was also going to say to the shadow Secretary of State that this issue extends far beyond Northern Ireland. It absolutely should be seen as an issue right across the United Kingdom, because there  were many victims over the course of the troubles from right across the United Kingdom, and a number of them were severely disabled. Although there is no doubt that some elements of dealing with victims’ issues are devolved, this is a UK-wide issue.
The other issue I wanted to raise in support of the shadow Secretary of State relates to the fact that this is a legacy issue. As we have said, my party has been involved for many years in discussing how to deal with the very troubled and tragic legacy that arose from the troubles in Northern Ireland. In those discussions, there was an agreement across all parties that some of these issues happened at a time when there was direct rule and no devolved government. Some of the issues go much wider than Northern Ireland with regard to dealing with the legacy of the campaigns of violence. That would be recognised through the Government considering, drafting and bringing forward legislation to deal with a mixed range of issues, some of which would have been devolved and some that would not. I see no reason why such legislation could not contain provisions to support those who are very much in need of support through a victims’ pension. The people who are over here are victims of some terrible, terrible atrocities, and they are suffering the consequences. I urge those Members who have not spoken to them to take the opportunity over the next couple of days to do so.
With reference to business in Northern Ireland, I welcome the very positive words about looking into the establishment of a business forum to discuss these matters, because the Secretary of State and the Minister will both know from listening to people from the business community that they have some concerns. They think it is right that their voices are heard. Of course, there is a positive story about business in Northern Ireland, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim. Despite the political difficulties, business is doing well. Invest Northern Ireland is working hard. Businesses are benefiting through foreign direct investment. We want that to continue. We will be doing everything in our power, within our role, to work with our partners across Northern Ireland and across the House to try to ensure that Northern Ireland works, and that we have the best possible outcomes for everybody across the community in Northern Ireland.

Paul Girvan: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). Members sometimes say that every time they rise to speak in the final part of a debate, everything they want to say has already been said. I have only been here for a short time, but it does not seem to me to make any difference. Plenty of people believe that repetition is definitely a way to get the message across, so I will continue to say what everyone else has said.
When the Northern Ireland Executive were in place, they had a rule associated with setting the regional rate that it was not to be above inflation, and that was what happened up until recently. Unfortunately, the previous Minister, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, did not have the bottle to bring forward a budget because he believed that he was probably going to have to bring about a rate increase—I am not sure whether that was the case, but I will state it. In line with that, many functions need to be carried on.
The regional rate makes up roughly 47% of the rates bill that a household pays. On the basis of what I have just said, a 4.5% increase—albeit that it is above inflation—is a lot better than it could have been. I want to thank members of my party, as well as those of others, who have negotiated and been involved in that reduction and ensured we did not end up with a 10% increase in the rate. The people who will benefit greatly from that are those in households that are hard pressed at moment.
I want to refer to the small business rate relief scheme brought forward by the Northern Ireland Executive to help our small businesses—primarily those on our high streets—which suffered greatly during the economic crisis. For a start, we set a limit of £5,000—if a business’s rateable value was more than £5,000, it did not get the relief. If the rateable value was under £5,000, it did. We moved that to £10,000, and now it is £15,000. I would like to ensure that we bring forward the same scheme now and extend it for a further year, to help businesses that are already struggling and finding it difficult. I want to ensure that our high streets are vibrant and alive and that rates are not used as an excuse for having vacant properties on our high streets.
It is vital for services in Northern Ireland that we bring forward the Bill, but in doing so, we note with sadness that we do not have an Assembly in Northern Ireland to make decisions such as this for us. The people to blame for that are those who refuse to go there and set up a Government. They want to set red lines—we hear all sorts of red lines. None of those red lines will affect Northern Ireland economically, but their decision to not enter a Government has a major impact on Northern Ireland’s economic development.
I do not want some people to think, “This is an opportunity because we have no Assembly,” but in spite of all that, it is interesting to note our economic figures. We are doing extremely well with foreign direct investment, and our unemployment figure is one of the lowest since 1975. I welcome the statement of such figures, and I know that Northern Ireland as a region has benefited greatly from our connection with and being part of the Union. That is the important thing, and that is how we have developed our wealth as a country. We have not got it because of our connection to Europe, as some people might want to say. They might say that we have received a lot of economic benefit from Europe and that the grant funding will disappear, but that is only a small proportion of what we contribute to Europe as a nation, and as a consequence I believe we will still be able to sustain and support the communities and organisations that receive help through that mechanism.

Bob Stewart: I was under the impression that grant funding would stay the same, at least in the short term, so there would not be a big difference.

Paul Girvan: I welcome that point, and I understand that to be the case, but some people want to talk a crisis into absolutely everything. No matter what happens at the moment, they will make a crisis out of it. They want to say that there is nothing good going on, and they see nothing positive. Our media peddle a story that tells us nothing positive about what is going on in Northern Ireland. We are producing the best employment figures in Northern Ireland for decades, but what do we hear?  Nothing. They do not want to cover that. We hear all the nonsense, slander—I should not say that—and lines of attack that they put forward as their agenda.
The cap that has been put in place for the renewable heat incentive scheme has created some hardship for many who were using the scheme correctly and not abusing it. I believe that the cap had to be put in place, but there needs to be some recognition of how some people moved forward with funding under the scheme. They made a 25-year business plan, and some of them want a payback fairly quickly. Some of them were not fortunate enough to have enough money to put in and capitalise the whole thing themselves, so they had to go to finance houses to get a loan to buy equipment. They may have made a business plan based on a five-year payback, which means that it is quite a large payback per month for a small business, with some of them borrowing £300,000 or £400,000, but they did that on the basis of the Government-backed scheme and the funding that they were receiving.
I believe that there is an opportunity now, and that banks should be given help to renegotiate some of those finance deals. There will still be money to be made out of it, but not as much. The difficulty is that businesses are sometimes paying far more than they are earning in a month—not just what they are receiving in payments from their energy use, but what the business itself is earning. A message has to go out that we will allow banks to renegotiate some of the terms of those loans.
I appreciate that the rates cap associated with property is set at £400,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South and ratepayers in the leafy suburbs of her constituency will benefit greatly, not having to pay higher rates than someone who owns a property in the centre of London valued at £2.3 million. I welcome the retention of the cap within the rating scheme, and I support the Bill.

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) was the penultimate Back-Bench speaker in this debate, and I am the last. I am always pleased to contribute to debates about Northern Ireland—and, indeed, a few others as well.
First, I would like to thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Bill forward. As we outlined yesterday, this is not the preferred scenario for Northern Ireland. We very much want to see the Bill coming forward, but it is no doubt due to Sinn Féin’s obstinate attitude, the obstacles it has put up and its austerity agenda, which we are all going to suffer from. Today will hopefully be the first stage in people not suffering, because the people back home will have an opportunity to see what we can do.
The preferred scenario is that we allow those who were elected to do a job to sit down and do that job. My colleagues are desperately aware of that and are itching to do it, yet we are past the stage where we can apply a plaster to cover the wound. The wound is infected and seeping and needs urgent attention, and today’s debate is the prep for the surgery. The Secretary of State has set that out. I would like to thank all hon. Members who have contributed so far to bringing the Bill forward.  We have discussed who and what caused the wound—a militant Sinn Féin agenda—and now we are beginning the process of cauterising it and stopping the bleeding.
I want to put on record my thanks to my colleague, the MLA and former Finance Minister Simon Hamilton, for all the hard work he has done. He is a really hard-working MLA, as all MLAs are. They do incredible work across all constituencies in Northern Ireland, night and day.
The people from the Province have waited long enough for decisions, and today we are waiting for the right decision to be made. For example, I know that the council that covers the majority of my constituency, Ards and North Down Borough Council, has been working really hard to keep the rates down in its area, as has Newry, Mourne and Down District Council. Ards and North Down Borough Council has initiated a scheme whereby the grey bin for any waste is collected every other week, a blue bin for recyclables is collected on the alternate week and a brown bin for food waste is collected every other week, along with a kerbside collection of glass.
Such initiatives enable savings to be made at the council level. Some of the savings were put into an educational pot that is used to promote environmental issues in schools, by taking children to see how recycling works and holding other such events. The pot is used to go around community groups and host events in communities, and a large amount of it goes to offsetting the rate, meaning that despite the council building a state-of-the-art leisure centre and many other outputs in Ards, when it met on Tuesday 13 February and struck a district rate for 2018-19, the domestic rate was 22.3273p in the pound—a rise of 2.96%. It is a thrifty council, using all its Ulster Scotsism to look after the pennies and the pounds and ensure that it can still deliver a good rate. For the average household in Ards and North Down, that equates to an increase a £1.35 per month, and they get all the things I have mentioned and a lot more for that money. The council has attempted to stay as close to the inflation rate as it possibly could, while still providing an acceptable level of service provision.
When we look at the decision that the Secretary of State is making today, we understand the reasons why she has put it forward and why it must be done. I know that the Secretary of State will say that we pushed and pushed her to take the decision, and we are very pleased that she has done so.
For the record, may I commend the Secretary of State for her answers during Northern Ireland questions today? She was pithy and confident, and she showed all the things we look for in a Secretary of State. There again, the Under-Secretary obviously did extremely well too in assisting the Secretary of State. He always does well.
Some will question why, when others are attempting to keep increases as near to the inflation level as possible, the Secretary of State has set the rate at the level she has. We need more finance, and this will enable such money to be collected, allowing business to continue and the wheels to carry on turning. This is all part of the additional money that has been granted by this House.

David Simpson: Does my hon. Friend agree that councils in Northern Ireland are very  prudent, because we have working relationships and collaboration right across the whole of the Province, which helps to save money for the general public?

Jim Shannon: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. There may be an odd council or two that are not quite as prudent as they should be, and we would like them all to be every bit as prudent as each other.
With the additional money, we live in hope that the Ballynahinch bypass might even be started, that nurses could be trained in using diabetic insulin pumps, and that there may be more hours for NHS staff and more classroom assistance. We hope for all these things from this money, and we will see how it goes.
I am very pleased that the Government have awarded NHS staff a wage increase today. This House should be proud of that, use it to encourage them and say that it is a recognition of their efforts and hard work.
As we all know, the nature of rates is that they go up every year; it is very unlikely that they will not. The fact is that they are higher this year than they were last year and the year before. I want to point out, however, that families are struggling. It would be remiss of me to come to the Chamber without making that point. I obviously say that regularly, and I have done it again today.
It is my belief that the working poor are becoming more and more prevalent, with parents in work and yet struggling under the burden of bills. Another sacrifice for a struggling family who are not on benefits is that they do not get any form of rates relief, yet their children might be living in poverty. In Northern Ireland we have some of the highest child poverty levels in the whole United Kingdom. An area may be perceived to be affluent, but that does not mean that the issues of child poverty are not real, because they clearly are.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: If the hon. Lady wants to make a contribution, I encourage her to make a speech, because that would be very helpful.
In 2016, it was found that 24% of children in Northern Ireland live in poverty. We need to address that issue and ensure that raising the rates will help those in poverty as well as others. For those who are well off enough to live in a large house with no thought of a rates increase, such an increase is wonderful, and it is fine for those who are receiving housing benefit and help with rates, but for those who are just above the income threshold for help, it is another blow. I again ask the Secretary of State whether it is possible to respond to the needs of households that fall below that threshold. They would not have been affected a while ago, but will find that they are with this rates increase.
I wish to comment on the fact that, as people know, the Northern Ireland Assembly has not functioned correctly or been able to make legal decisions for the past 14 months. As we are aware from our discussions yesterday, this period has seen some of the largest growth, the highest percentage rises in job opportunities and the lowest unemployment that we have had for a great many years. The Assembly set the scene for that, putting concrete foundations in place for it, and we are now seeing the benefits. Again, as I am sure others  would agree, we would love to see even more of that, as we would if we had a functioning Assembly that was able to work.
I thank the Secretary of State for setting the rate, but is there a way to lower it for households on the threshold of help, and indeed for those that receive no help? They now have yet another higher bill to pay, and that bill is not taken into account in working out what comes the household in the form of tax credits or other support. Again, we knew that the rate increase had to come, but we cannot ignore what may happen. Will the Minister outline what help in relation to the rates increase is available for those who are being squeezed financially?
It would be remiss of me not to comment on the continuation of the small business rate relief scheme, for which I am thankful, as we are seeking to revive our high streets and provide support to small retailers and small employers. In the main town of Newtownards in my constituency, and indeed in Comber and Ballynahinch as well, small business rate relief has brought dividends and positivity. Where once there were vacant shops in the high street of Newtownards, there are none today.
It is well known—I will say it again to make sure that it is recorded—that Newtownards is one of the towns with one of the best shopping and town centres in the whole of Northern Ireland. It is not only me saying so, but those who live there and businesses as well. If hon. Members have not been to Newtownards for their shopping, I encourage them to do so. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), has done so, and I encourage others to do likewise. We also look forward to having the opportunity to take the Minister to Newtownards shortly as well.
In the same way that Ards and North Down Borough Council found an innovative way to educate the community, and in turn to save it, by keeping the rates down, what innovations can be made to ensure that the rate is not continually uplifted well above inflation and to help people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a financial squeeze? We need infrastructure and an influx of funding for the NHS, but we also need to ensure that those who are in the middle and working hard—they see their children having massive debt in student loans, but are unable to help them—are not squeezed any further. I again thank the Secretary of State for the Bill.

Steve Pound: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have used expediency as their watchword this afternoon. Would that brevity was always the order of the day here.
The Secretary of State rightly referred to “a necessary intervention”, and the points that she and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), made about the current situation being unsought by any of us and something that we have to manage were very well made.
I want to concentrate on one aspect of the Secretary of State’s contribution, which was her very welcome mention of small business rates. This was picked up by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan). Some of us have had the great pleasure of attending small business Saturday throughout Northern Ireland. It has taken me from Downpatrick to Coleraine, but I  have to say that the high point was probably visiting Quails in Banbridge. People have said that Quails is the Fortnum & Mason of County Down, but I think that Fortnum & Mason is the Quails of Knightsbridge.

Nigel Dodds: The hon. Gentleman mentions Quails, which I know very well since it is not far from where I live, but just for the sake of completeness and inclusiveness, he should also mention Fred Elliott, an excellent purveyor of meat products in Banbridge.

Steve Pound: There are strict rules in this House against the wearing of advertising. I appreciate that the top of my head is available, but I would prefer it not to be emblazoned with anybody’s name. I am more than happy to give credit to Fred Elliott, although I have to say that Quails is quite remarkable.
We have heard a range of speakers coming mostly around the same point, although they occasionally went off in slightly different directions. None was more recondite and esoteric than that of the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who raised the terrifying prospect of the DUP standing in my constituency and those of other Members. That is something that I am prepared to wrestle with, although I have visited the right hon. Gentleman in Carrick and Larne and, the last time I visited Carrickfergus council, a tank was parked outside the city hall. He apparently uses it for canvassing, so I would prefer him not to proceed.

Bob Stewart: rose—

Steve Pound: I will be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I should say in advance that I am unable to identify the precise type of tank.

Bob Stewart: I just want to point out to my hon. Friend—because he is a friend—that Carrickfergus was the first battle honour of the Cheshire Regiment, in 1689.

Steve Pound: I cannot begin to match the Cheshires when it comes to battle honours, as most of my fighting took place in Union Street in Plymouth, sadly—but that is another story, and not one that we will necessarily hear today.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) summed up. When he rises to his feet, additional Hansard reporters are drafted in—two of them have been carried out with wet towels around their heads. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was excellent; every 50th word certainly resonated with the House. If the Hansard reporters were paid on a piecework basis, they would all retire by the end of the week.
The hon. Gentleman always makes important points, and he rightly referred to my very pleasant visit to Newtownards, where I was the guest at an extremely enjoyable dinner held in the Elim Pentecostal church on the Ards peninsula. There was not an enormous amount of liquid hospitality, to be fair, but the welcome was extremely warm and the company extremely stimulating.
Something is hanging over all that we have discussed today. The reality is that we are talking about being in a place where we do not necessarily want to be. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)  talked about this being a serene and benign process. She was right to make that point, but we should also be aware of the alternative. If there is serenity and benignity, it is in this place, not necessarily in others.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made powerful points, which I hope will be answered soon—they have to be. We then heard from the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). That was an intensely powerful, really important speech—and not only in setting out the Democratic Unionist party’s fiscal policy, which appears to echo Gladstone’s famous dictum that money should fructify in the pockets of the people rather than be taken in taxation. She then referred to today’s visit from the people from WAVE Trauma Centre, whom the shadow Secretary of State was delighted to welcome.
When we hear the stories of those people—people who have lost their legs or been paralysed; in one case, a man’s father died of a heart attack when his son was shot—we realise what the alternative is in Northern Ireland and why it is absolutely crucial that we should never, ever cease bending every single sinew to ensure the continuity of the peace process. I would like to thank Sandra Peake and Alan McBride from the WAVE centre and pay tribute to those who have come across today: Mark Kelly, Jennifer McNern, Paddy Cassidy, Robert Barfoot, Dr Mary Hannon Fletcher, Peter Heathwood, Cathy McCann, Alex Bunting and Paul Gallagher. They have suffered in a way that most of us in this House can never begin to imagine.
If we do not do every single thing we can to ensure the continuity of the peace process and stability in Northern Ireland, we insult those people and their families. We do not give them credit for their suffering. We simply have to do our very best. Everyone today has spoken from that standpoint. This is one occasion on which I hope we are as one in the House. There have been differences of emphasis by all means, but let us never, ever forget that, if we cannot manage this process in the right way, plenty wish to do it in the wrong way.
We on the Opposition Front Bench are as one with the Secretary of State and her Minister. We support them in what they are doing, but above all we recognise the suffering that many have experienced—the almost unimaginable pain and trauma that they have known. We will never, ever let you down.

Shailesh Vara: It is a great pleasure to follow the moving words of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). I thank all those who have contributed today from across the political divide. It is particularly good that we all broadly agree about the way forward for this Bill. In bringing it forward, alongside the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, which the House considered yesterday, we will be providing support for public services and finances in Northern Ireland.
The Bills deal solely with matters that are rightly the responsibility of the Executive and the Assembly and I very much hope that they will be dealt with at a devolved level and in a devolved Assembly in future, as that remains our overriding priority—one shared, I know, by Members across the House. In the absence, however,  of an Executive and sitting Assembly, it falls to the UK Government to bring forward necessary measures, such as those in the Bill.
Setting the regional rates will give certainty to citizens and businesses over the level and frequency of their bills and to the Northern Ireland Departments that rely on the revenue from those rates. The extension of the cost-capping regulations for the Northern Ireland renewable heat incentive scheme will protect the public purse in a way that fairly upholds the interests of those receiving payments under the scheme. It is important that we take action now to address those issues.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), who opened on behalf of the Opposition. I felt that some of the points he raised were dealt with by the Secretary of State. I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The comments made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) were very much appreciated, as were those made by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) for her moving and passionate speech, which certainly had the attention of all the House—I do not mean that the House was not listening to everyone else, but it listened more attentively to the hon. Lady. I also thank the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Secretary of State and I are both particularly grateful for the kind comments that the hon. Member for Strangford extended in our direction.
I will try to cover some of the questions raised, but I am mindful that brevity is the order of the day and of this particular debate. The measures being taken are necessary and proportionate to safeguard public finances and public services in Northern Ireland. The decision to raise the rate was not taken lightly. The Secretary of State took account of the budgetary scenarios outlined by the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland and spoke to the parties and to stakeholders. It was clear that, to enable Northern Ireland to live within its means while safeguarding growth and addressing pressures in key areas such as health and education, the right course was to ask households to pay slightly more—in this case, less than £1 per week per household. The levels outlined in the Secretary of State’s statement on 8 March strike that balance and offer a necessary, fair and reasonable position on regional rates.
In the absence of an Executive and sitting Assembly, the measures in the Bill will help to safeguard public finances and services in Northern Ireland. I propose that the Bill be read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Bill considered in Committee (Order, this day).
[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS (PAY) BILL (BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Assembly Members (Pay) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill), and
(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.—(Paul Maynard.)

NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS (PAY) BILL

Second Reading

Karen Bradley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the third important piece of legislation to be brought before the House this week. The Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, which the House debated yesterday, and the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Bill, on which we have just concluded proceedings, focused on increasing clarity and confidence in Northern Ireland’s finances. This Bill will now look to increase public confidence in Northern Ireland’s political institutions.
The Bill addresses an issue of long-standing public concern—the pay and allowances of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is a subject in which interest among the public has increased with the time that Northern Ireland has been without a functioning devolved Executive—a period that now stands at 14 months.

Nigel Dodds: The Secretary of State will know that our party supports the Bill. We believe that it is right to take the power to deal with MLA pay, and to stop the proposed pay rise as agreed by the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We would also ask the Government to look carefully at the situation in which Sinn Féin representatives get representative money in this place without being subject to the same rules as everybody else. The two should go together.

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me on several occasions and it has been discussed in the House. I know the strength of feeling on the matter, but he will also know that it is a matter for the House, not for the Government. That is why we are dealing with the power to vary the pay and allowances of Members of the Legislative Assembly today.

Gavin Robinson: The Secretary of State is right to indicate that the matter is for the House, not for the Government, but what is a matter for the Government is the ability of Northern Ireland political parties to raise funds outside the United Kingdom in international jurisdictions and wherever they so choose. She could take steps to close that loophole. Will she do so?

Karen Bradley: At Question Time, we had a question about the transparency of donations and I am pleased that the House has passed the order to start to increase such transparency. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to see further work on that, but I ask that we should see how the order works first. If more needs to be done, we will need to look at that.

Desmond Swayne: I am surprised but delighted when, during election campaigns, I continue to receive a salary, notwithstanding the fact that the House has been dissolved. What is the difference in principle between us receiving salaries when Parliament  has been dissolved and Members of the Assembly receiving salaries when there is no Assembly? I do not mean to be difficult, but I would not want us to set an unhelpful and unwelcome precedent.

Karen Bradley: My right hon. Friend always asks helpful questions; he is not known for doing anything other. We are looking to have the power in this House to vary the salaries of Members who serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly—MLAs—in response to the fact that there has been no functioning Assembly for 14 months and the clear public concern about people receiving salaries when the Assembly is not sitting. He is correct, of course, that Members of Parliament receive a salary for the period in which an election runs, but I believe that the rules are different for the period when Parliament is dissolved as opposed to when it is sitting. I understand his concerns, but I assure him that this relates specifically to MLAs’ pay, not MPs’ pay.

Andrew Murrison: I encourage my right hon. Friend not to be distracted because a number of important points have been made by hon. and right hon. Members, but the Bill is very tight and, as she rightly says, responds to public concern. In my experience, and I suspect in hers too, that public concern goes right across the divide in Northern Ireland. She is right to pursue this matter, because the public expect these salaries to be dealt with. In my understanding, that is the sole purpose of the Bill. Everything else can be discussed electively, but it must not distract the Secretary of State.

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for his intervention. He is right that the Bill responds public concern, which has been raised with me and with him as Chair of the Committee, and with its members. I am sure that it has also been raised with Members of Parliament here who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland.
The Bill will grant the power to vary pay and allowances for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and, as I have just said, it is clear from my conversations with the public and stakeholders that there is broad desire for action to be taken in this regard. The Assembly has not sat since 13 March 2017—its first meeting after the 2 March election—but its Members continue to be paid their full salaries.
MLAs’ salaries and allowances are rightly a devolved matter. The normal process for setting MLA pay and allowances is for the Independent Financial Review Panel—a body set up by the Assembly for this purpose—to make determinations on pay and allowances. The panel would normally do that ahead of each Assembly election to cover the newly elected Assembly, although it is also empowered to make changes to reflect extraordinary circumstances. The last panel determination was made in March 2016 before the election in May that year. As no Members have been appointed since the first panel’s term of office ended in 2016, there is at present nobody in Northern Ireland with the power to change MLA pay to reflect the current extraordinary circumstances.
From my conversations and from opinion polling, it is clear that the public want to see somebody with the power to act. That is what the Bill will leave me in a position to do. In short, it will put me in the same  position as the panel ordinarily would be in, giving me, as Secretary of State, the power to set out the pay and allowances of MLAs by means of a determination.

Sylvia Hermon: When the Secretary of State last made a statement to the House covering this particular issue, she made it clear that she wanted the Northern Ireland parties to make “full and final representations” to her on it, but she did not clarify when the closure date was for full and final representations. Will she confirm today that that date is before the end of this month and that she will therefore be free to cut MLAs’ salaries before the end of March?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady is right that I did not set a specific date. I hope that representations will be made and will continue to be made, and that the fact that we have this Bill before us will encourage people to come forward and make representations. I am also clear that the reason for introducing it this week—I will come to this later—is to ensure that the pay rise that would have gone through automatically on 1 April is stopped, and that we can then take a decision about pay. I will come to my position—what I am minded to do—but she is right that I have not made a final decision on a date.

Sylvia Hermon: I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous in taking a second intervention so quickly. Will she also confirm in the House, for the record, that all representations made from Northern Ireland political parties will be published, so that the public can see that the general consensus across the political parties is that they want to see MLAs’ salaries cut?

Karen Bradley: Of course I am happy to publish any representations made to me, although that might not be appropriate for some, for specific reasons, and information might need to be redacted. I cannot envisage any such reasons now, however, and I will of course ensure as much publicity and transparency as possible.
One important difference between the panel’s powers and those in the Bill is that, although the panel also makes determinations on pensions, the Bill includes an explicit protection for MLAs’ pensions so that they are not affected by any changes to MLAs’ pay.
With the panel’s 2016 determination continuing to operate, and without action by someone empowered to make a new determination, a £500 per year increase in the salaries of all MLAs will automatically apply from 1 April. That is linked to the level of inflation the previous September. The criteria for an increase was met in 2017, so the increase will apply automatically at the start of next month. I am clear that it is not appropriate for this increase to apply in the present circumstances.
In advice provided to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), Trevor Reaney, a former Clerk of the Northern Ireland Assembly, recommended that the increase not take place. Further, the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly has written to me on behalf of the Assembly Commission saying that it is its view that the rise would not be appropriate and that it would be  appropriate for me to take action to stop it. If granted the power to do so by the Bill, I will introduce a short determination to do just that.
More broadly, in his December 2017 advice, Mr Reaney provided his independent assessment of what action should be taken on MLA pay and allowances in the current circumstances. As part of that advice, he also recommended stopping the £500 increase. The advice was, however, more wide ranging. He made a series of recommendations, including for a 27.5% reduction in MLAs’ salaries. That was a considered case based on his assessment, following discussions with the parties and other stakeholders, and reflected pay that took account of all the important work that many Members continued to do in the absence of an Assembly. That is, at this stage, a recommendation I am minded to follow.
As we have just discussed, I set it out last week that I wished to seek final representations from the parties before I took action. I continue to encourage those representations so that we can hear views from all sides before introducing a determination on wider changes to pay and allowances under the Bill. I cannot act to put a determination in place, however, until the Bill has been passed by both Houses and received Royal Assent. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members across the House and in the other place will support the Bill and allow me to take action on this matter.
The Bill itself makes no change to MLAs’ pay or allowances. It merely grants me the power to make a determination during this period without an Executive.

Bob Stewart: Does the Secretary of State have a view on what should happen to the salaries of those who work for MLAs? They have no choice, and we should be sympathetic to that.

Karen Bradley: I have said in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and elsewhere that I agree with the point my hon. and gallant Friend makes. The staff, who work extraordinarily hard on behalf of MLAs’ constituents, should not suffer as a result of our being unable to form an Executive and get the Assembly sitting. As Members of this Parliament, we know the work we do in this place and for our constituents outside, but we also know how hard our staff work, and they should not be prejudiced by the Bill. I do not intend, therefore, to take any action with regard to staff salaries. They should continue to be paid, given how incredibly hard they work for MLAs’ constituents.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that many people in Northern Ireland will be grateful she is doing that? As we heard in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee whenever the former Finance Minister, Alex Easton, came and answered questions from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—it became known as the Alex Easton section—the staff of hard-working MLAs work day and night to deliver the best deal possible for constituents, so this is very good news. We welcome the salary reduction, but people on the ground should not suffer as a result.

Owen Smith: rose—

Karen Bradley: I give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

Owen Smith: I too, welcome what I think I heard from the Secretary of State, but may I clarify one point? Is she saying that she does not intend to enact Trevor Reaney’s recommendation that the staff budget should be cut from £50,000 to £37,500? If that is what she has decided, it is an excellent decision.

Karen Bradley: That is exactly what I am saying. As I have said, I know how hard my staff work, and I am sure that the staff of all of us in this place work incredibly hard for our constituents. The position of the staff at Stormont should not be prejudiced by what is happening with their political masters.

Sylvia Hermon: I have great sympathy with what the Secretary of State has said about not cutting allowances for staff. They should not be punished because the MLAs are not sitting and have not sat for 14 months. However, the Secretary of State said that she was “minded” to follow Trevor Reaney’s recommendation, delivered on 20 December 2017. Does that translate into cutting MLAs’ salaries when she is given the power to do so today? That is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know.

Karen Bradley: Yes, I am minded to cut the salaries of MLAs in line with the Trevor Reaney recommendation, on the basis that that is the only evidence that I have and the only advice that I have. However, I am open to recommendations and representations from others. I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Reaney for the work that he did, but if others believe that something different should be done, I shall welcome their representations.

Paul Girvan: I welcome the Bill. In the statement that was made last week, it was indicated that there would be consultation with the parties. I welcome that as well, but when will the consultation start?

Karen Bradley: I do not intend to consult the parties explicitly. What I have said is that I would welcome representations from the parties to provide me with the evidence and the views that I need to make a final decision about the level at which we should set MLAs’ salaries.
I have spent many hours in the Stormont Parliament building over the last few weeks, along with some Opposition Members. It is a wonderful building, and it is right for it to be full of MLAs and their staff, working and delivering on behalf of the people who elected them. We know how different this place is during recesses from how it is when Parliament is sitting. I want to see that place alive, as it should be.

Emma Little Pengelly: I absolutely agree with what the Secretary of State has said about constituency staff. They work incredibly hard, and they are in their present position through no fault of their own, so I welcome that decision. I ask her to recognise, however, that there are also very hard-working constituency MLAs, many of whom—including those in my party—want to get back to work but cannot because there are red lines. One of them is my constituency colleague Mr Christopher Stalford, who works very hard in South Belfast alongside me.

Karen Bradley: Those are issues that Mr Reaney looked at. He looked at the work that the MLAs are not doing because the Assembly is not sitting, but also at the work they do for their constituents, and tried to find a balance. That is why I would welcome representations from others, so that I can be sure that the decision that is made is a fair decision that reflects properly the contribution that MLAs make to their constituents even in the absence of an Assembly.
Once an Executive is formed, the power to make a determination will return to being an entirely devolved matter. A future panel would of course be free to make a new determination, applying to all future periods, if it saw fit. That would supersede any determination made under the Bill. To ensure that we do not again find ourselves in a situation in which MLAs remain on full pay when there is no Executive, with no panel determination covering that situation, the Bill allows a determination made under it to apply again. Let me make it clear that it is the determination that would apply again. The power to make a new determination would, in those circumstances, remain devolved.
Therefore, overall, the focus of the Bill is narrow, and I consider taking the power to set MLA pay a necessary step to uphold public confidence in Northern Ireland in the absence of an Executive and a sitting Assembly. As an immediate step, if granted the power set out in the Bill, I intend to act to stop the £500 per year inflationary increase applying to MLAs’ salaries from 1 April. Beyond that, I am minded at this stage to follow the recommendations made by Mr Trevor Reaney, but am open to receiving representations before making my final decision. I commend the Bill to the House.

Owen Smith: We accept the need for a cut in MLAs’ salaries. The last Labour Government did that on three occasions when there was a similar period of the Assembly not sitting; in the first instance, we cut it from £43,000 to £29,000; in the second instance, we cut it to £21,000; and there was a third cut in 2006. I therefore have one note of caution for those who imagine this will prompt the Assembly and its parties to instantly come together: pay was cut three times and it did not necessarily work—I am not sure that it was the third cut that pushed the parties over the edge to do the deal. None the less, there is widespread support for this measure in the House and in Northern Ireland.
We recognise that, as Trevor Reaney said, legislative work is not the only aspect of MLAs’ work. Just as for MPs, there is a huge amount of work for them to do in their constituencies and elsewhere. Mr Reaney estimates between 50% and 60% of MLAs’ work is constituency-based, not legislative. However, clearly they are not doing their job in its entirety and therefore it is entirely justifiable that their salaries are cut.
We support the way in which the Secretary of State intends to do this, if she follows Trevor Reaney’s proposed mechanism of a phased step basis. That makes sense given that people have to make adjustments: MLAs have mortgages and families, and it is entirely fair, and compatible with employment legislation, that a measured step-wise approach is taken. I welcome the news that the Secretary of State will not enact Mr Reaney’s recommendation in respect of MLAs’ staff, however. As many Members have already remarked, they continue  to work extremely hard and the fact that the Assembly is not sitting is no fault of theirs. Therefore, it is right that the budget is maintained.
Finally, I have a question. I am not sure whether I am misreading the Bill or whether I have read this in the notes somewhere and now cannot find it, but I understood that we were going to address in the Bill the anomaly whereby Members of the Assembly who cease to be Members of the Assembly yet are members of the Assembly commission continue to be paid. That has been a concern and a cause of great consternation and surprise in Northern Ireland. Is that being dealt with in this Bill, and if not, will it be dealt with at some point?

Deidre Brock: This is a bit like déjà vu all over again.
We, too, accept the Secretary of State’s points with regard to the need for this Bill. I have little to add to my comments in the last two debates, particularly on my dismay at the fast-tracking of today’s legislation and my view that these decisions should properly be taken in the devolved legislature. I am, however, very pleased to note the Secretary of State’s points regarding MLAs’ allowances and staff costs not being cut. At least, constituents will therefore continue to be well-served from constituency offices. I certainly acknowledge the strength of feeling of the public of Northern Ireland on this issue, so we will not oppose the Bill.

Gavin Robinson: I am delighted to see how much time there is for me to go through this Bill’s provisions, but I think you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we are in danger of permitting my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) an inordinate amount of time for his Adjournment debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I just say that most Members of Parliament will now want to intervene on the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)?

Gavin Robinson: That is exactly what I was going to say, because I fear there will be nobody in this Chamber to intervene at all, and therefore God bless “PARLY” tweets, because that will be empty—devoid of anything to say—this evening.

Sammy Wilson: Perhaps the Deputy Speaker could give us some guidance on whether my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford will be allowed to intervene on himself during the Adjournment debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that, if there is nobody else here, he definitely will.

Gavin Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last night, you were concerned that we were descending into talk of bunkers; today we are perhaps going bonkers. But we will get there.
My parliamentary leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), has outlined our support for the Bill. We think that this is a necessary step that the public of Northern Ireland expect us to  take. Indeed, there has been a great deal of frustration over the length of time it has taken to get to this point. The only greater level of frustration is that we do not have an Assembly and that all 90 Members of our legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland will be affected as a consequence of the actions of a minority within it. We cannot overlook that fact when we address the contents of the Bill.
Other Members will mention hard-working MLAs. Mention has been made of one from North Down and of another from Belfast South. My colleagues Joanne Bunting and Robin Newton are also hard-working Members of the Legislative Assembly. I would go further, however, and say that all five representatives in my constituency of Belfast East are hard-working representatives for their constituents—not just the Democratic Unionists but the Alliance party representatives and an Ulster Unionist as well. The same is true of Green representatives and of Social Democratic and Labour party representatives in Northern Ireland. All those representatives would have a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly established and working again tomorrow. They all stood because they believe in their constituents, in our country and in democracy, yet they are frustrated from doing their jobs. There might be a tad of frustration at the length of time it has taken to see action on MLAs’ pay, but MLAs and the public more generally want the MLAs to be active for their constituents and for their communities. Those MLAs want to get on with the job.
We are where we are, however, and there are a couple of questions about the Bill that I would like to raise with the Secretary of State. It has been clearly outlined that, should it be required, any determination on the basis of this legislation would be capable of being made again, even after the restoration and potential subsequent decline of an Executive.

Karen Bradley: If it is helpful, I can tell the hon. Gentleman the way this will work. Once the Executive are formed, the power to make decisions will move back to the panel, because it can be re-formed, but if the Executive were to collapse again, we in this House would retain the ability to make a determination here without the need for further legislation.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, but clause 1(3) gives me cause for concern. It states clearly:
“The power to make a determination under subsection (1) or (2) ceases on the first occasion”
that the Bill is used to make a determination and an Executive are re-formed. If that power ceases when an Executive are re-formed, how can another determination be made? I have read the explanatory notes, and I see that the intention is that a determination can be made, but that seems to jar with the fact that the power will cease on the first occasion it is used when an Executive are re-formed. I understand that this question might not be able to be answered quickly, but if there is an intervention to be made, I will take it. If not, I will move on, but I hope that we can get some clarification on this as we continue our consideration of the Bill.
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to indicate that she will immediately take steps under this legislation, if it is passed, to stop the £500 increase that is due to  MLAs’ pay in April. That is a sensible decision, and I think that the court of public opinion would be aghast if Assembly Members were to receive another £500 increase.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The first determination does cease at the point that the Executive is re-formed, but we still have the power to make further determinations in this place if the Executive subsequently collapses. This determination will cease, so we may then need to make a separate determination.

Gavin Robinson: I thank the Secretary of State. That is exactly what was outlined earlier, but it still does not solve the problem of the terminology and the language. Clause 1(3) states that the
“power to make a determination”—
a fresh or new determination—
“under subsection (1) or (2) ceases on the first occasion after the passing of this Act”
when an Executive are formed. I accept that the determination itself could be renewed, but I seek clarification on whether there is the power to do so. I may be completely misunderstanding things, but the Secretary of State is indicating that the power will exist to make a new determination, yet subsection (3) indicates that the power “ceases”, so I would be grateful for some clarity.

Karen Bradley: I know that this is very technical, but I am trying to resolve this today, rather than have to come back to the hon. Gentleman. The intention is that a determination made in the current period would reapply in any future period, but the sunset clause means that the power cannot be used. Does that make sense?

Gavin Robinson: rose—

Karen Bradley: It may be easier if we write to the hon. Gentleman with exactly how it works. The intention as set out is how we intend things to work, but it may be easier if we write to him with the technical details.

Gavin Robinson: That would be useful. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I parsed such issues last night to the point that he questioned my sincerity because of the breadth of the smile on my face. It is useful to seek clarity on the Floor of the House, because the House’s intention needs to be clear should there ever be cause for judicial consideration, and I think what the Secretary of State has said is making things clear. I do not claim to be an expert on such matters, but there is an issue with the wording of subsection (3), and I will take the opportunity, once I have concluded my remarks, to withdraw from the Chamber—if that is appropriate—for a discussion with the officials should there be any need to raise the issue again in Committee.

Nigel Mills: If a determination was made to reduce pay by a third, for example, is the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that that determination would lapse when the Executive re-formed? If the Executive fell again, that cut of a third could be reactivated, but the power would not be there to change that third to a  half or to something else. Whatever is done now is what will happen if the Executive ever collapse again, but we cannot change the amount.

Gavin Robinson: As I have outlined, my concern is that the power ceases once we make the determination and the Executive are re-formed. That is the difficulty. It is not that there would not be the intention or the willingness; it is that the legislation, as currently drafted, removes the power.

Karen Bradley: We do intend that to be the case—I recognise that we are going around the houses slightly—and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman speak to my officials. We would be very happy to go through things. If there is confusion or if something needs to be made clear, we can either put something in the Library or say something in the other place when the legislation is debated there.

Gavin Robinson: I know that you did not expect that exchange of views, Mr Deputy Speaker, but this is important. If we are to pass legislation for Northern Ireland when we have a democratic deficit at home and if we are to use this accelerated process, it is important that we have the opportunity at least to probe and consider things to iron out the contents of any Bill that affects the people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to take the important step of bringing to a close the idea that MLAs will receive a pay increase of £500, and the public will support her. However, we are left in an invidious position by making a decision today without knowing how it will be rectified. If MLAs were doing their job today, the only reason why they would be getting an inflationary increase is that inflation and the cost of living are there and the value of the job has been assessed such that the salary should not just be fixed but increased in line with inflation.
I would love to know what happens when the Assembly is restored. Would Assembly Members receive adequate restitution if their pay rose in line with inflation, as it would for any other worker or public servant in this country? Will the Assembly be placed in an invidious position where, to secure the true value of MLA jobs, one of their first acts will be to rectify the decision not to introduce an increase in April? The indication that the Secretary of State gave today is right, but I am concerned that if that continued for an indefinite period the value and worth of salary attached to the role of MLA would be continually diminished.

Karen Bradley: Those are extremely good technical points, but I am assured that the determination that would be made to stop the £500 increase and a further determination to reduce pay would apply for the period in which an Executive is not formed. If the Executive is reformed, MLA pay will be at the rate it should be, including the £500 increase.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful for that clarification, which is important in two respects. During the stasis in Northern Ireland we should not allow a diminution in the value of the role of MLAs or in the worth of their work. More importantly, it should not be for MLAs to set it back again.
That leads me neatly on to the representations that the Secretary of State has invited on whether she should proceed with Trevor Reaney’s outline proposals. Inviting representations is preferable to a full consultation, because all of us in public life recognise that MLAs, Members of Parliament, local councillors, Ministers and parties should not make determinations about their own pay. Having heard what the Secretary of State has said in our exchanges, I believe that she is mindful of that and does not wish to have a full consultation with parties in which they would determine how she should proceed. I believe that she will proceed in the full knowledge that she has our backing in taking appropriate steps today.
This measure is necessary because we do not have a functioning Executive in Northern Ireland. Even though a programme for government was agreed in October 2016, apparently agreement could not be reached two months later, and the Assembly was brought down as a result of selfish, particular, political, partisan pursuits by one party— Sinn Féin—which, for the past 14 months, has held the people of Northern Ireland and MLAs, along with their willingness and desire for a devolved Assembly, to ransom. It has done so against the needs of its own community for health reform. It has done so against the desires of its community when it comes to inspiring children, investing in their future, supporting education, and reorganising our schools in Northern Ireland. It has done so against the wishes of all those who believe in community regeneration, as we do, and who believe in community development, as we do. We see the consequences of its actions coming down the tracks in cuts to neighbourhood renewal in my constituency and other urban areas affected by social deprivation. We cannot do anything about that in Parliament or in the Assembly, because Sinn Féin will not allow it.
That is pathetic. It is a disgrace that, while over the past 14 months in Parliament we have reflected on how shabby that is and how we would far rather have local government, there has been no pressure on Sinn Féin. Who decides that we need to coerce engagement or move on with those who continue to frustrate the development of peace, democracy and parliamentary representation in Northern Ireland? That is not a decision for today, but it is going to have to come, and I encourage the Secretary of State to be bold on it.
I asked the Secretary of State earlier about dark money. How do we get people to recognise that if they are not prepared to take up the reins of government in Northern Ireland, this UK Parliament will take the steps for them? Acting on Sinn Féin’s dark money is one way of doing that. For generations, millions of dollars have been flooding into Northern Ireland from the United States—and not just from there. In two weeks’ time, there will be a fundraiser for the Easter rising celebrations in Canada. At least 20,000 dollars—given the ticket sale price and the number of spaces available—will be raised there for Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland. Why do I say “Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland”? The answer is clear: the Irish Republic has had the courage to ban foreign donations to political parties within the 26 counties, and in Great Britain we have had the courage to ban foreign donations to political parties, but in Northern Ireland the door has been left open for Sinn Féin to benefit from dark money. We do not need to theorise or speculate about that, or to believe in conspiracy theories,  because Sinn Féin’s own fundraisers in the US tell us that they pay for the literature in Northern Ireland election campaigns and pay the phone bills in constituency offices of Sinn Féin Members in Northern Ireland. These people raising money in Canada, America and Australia are continually funding the pursuits of a political party in this United Kingdom via the only part of the UK where this loophole has been allowed to remain open.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend is right to press this issue with the Government. He will be aware that the website openDemocracy has written volumes about the Democratic Unionist party and donations we received in the Brexit referendum campaign, which we have declared to the Electoral Commission, and which have been found to be totally valid and to have met all the lawful requirements of the UK. I have challenged openDemocracy to investigate the millions and millions of dollars in dark money that Sinn Féin brings into this United Kingdom to finance election campaigns here. I have asked it when it is going to investigate this issue and the reply is, “If you have the evidence and you pass it on to us, we will consider it.” Any organisation or website claiming to be balanced and fair-minded, and wanting to probe in the interests of democracy, should be examining this issue.

Gavin Robinson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and I agree wholeheartedly. If a website wishes to indicate that it is investigatory, it should be jumping at the chance, heading off with its nose on the scent, following the trail and pursuing this money, which is coming in and corrupting democracy in this country. Although Members are kindly listening to this point in the Chamber, as they for years upon years, I have yet to hear any definitive political will from colleagues throughout the House to deal with it. Many of them have raised questions about political transparency and donations attached to other parties, but precious few have ever sought to lance this boil and get us to a place where the same rules apply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the UK.

Sammy Wilson: Does my hon. Friend also accept that this House has turned a blind eye to the hundreds of thousands of pounds obtained by Members who do not take up their seats in this place yet benefit from the money available in this House? Most Sinn Féin MPs will claim, and have claimed, more on expenses for living in London than I have claimed, yet they do not attend this House. We do not have any action taken by the House as a whole on that. It is another loophole that ought to be looked at; this is another source of finance that Sinn Féin obtains which should be closed. Perhaps that is the way of putting pressure on Sinn Féin, because it seems to be keen on getting money from abroad, using electoral loopholes and getting money from this House even when its Members refuse to sit in it.

Gavin Robinson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have focused on the dark money coming from abroad because it is something on which the Government can act; my right hon. Friend raises the representation money in this House, which is a matter for this House. Again, the same conditions apply: one might get a friendly smile or an acknowledgement of sorts—one  almost of comfort rather than encouragement—for raising this issue, but we will put it to the test and table a motion for discussion by the House.
My right hon. Friend referred to hundreds of thousands of pounds. I got my figures from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who in turn got them from the Leader of the House, and they have been published and are a matter of record. We are considering taking steps to reduce MLAs’ salaries because Sinn Féin have not allowed them to do their work, but it is important that we also look at the money that Sinn Féin MPs get for doing work in this House, which they do not attend. In 2007-08, they got £90,036. In 2008-09, they got £93,639. In 2009-10, they got £94,482. In 2010-11, they got £95,195. In 2011-12, they got £101,004. In 2012-13, they got £105,850. In 2013-14, they got £109,135. In 2014-15, they got £112,076. In 2015-16, they got £99,415, and in 2016-17, they got £97,556.
When we are considering cutting MLAs’ salaries because they are frustrated in doing their work by Sinn Féin Members, it is appropriate that we bear in mind that this House has agreed to a situation in which over the past 10 years Sinn Féin have been given just under £1 million for representation work that they do not do. That is a scandal. The Secretary of State will be well aware of the public criticism and concern about making sure that we do something about MLAs’ pay, but where is the enthusiasm and encouragement in this Chamber to deal decisively with the loopholes in respect of representation money and dark money from foreign countries?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the point has been very well made. It would not be for this Bill to change that; it would be done in other ways. It would helpful if we could try to deal with things that the Bill can deal with.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful for that indication, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I have fairly outlined what the Government can do and what is a matter for this House but not for this debate, so we shall leave it there.
We must consider how we get to the stage at which MLAs’ salaries no longer have to be reduced, and I should say for the Secretary of State’s benefit that a poll was published today that indicates the level of support among members of political parties for the positions that the parties have taken. Some 80% of our electorate do not believe that an Irish language Act should be delivered. They believe in our position and have strengthened their resolve in our position since September last year. That is the political climate in which the Minister, the Secretary of State and others will have to resolve things. They are going to need a steely determination and a level of resolve that has not been seen in the past decade from the Northern Ireland Office. In dealing with Northern Ireland’s complexities and a divided community, they are going to need the willingness, fortitude and wherewithal to resolve things in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland—or if not everyone, at least everyone who wants to make it work. We stand ready to form an Executive tomorrow with no preconditions, no red lines and no partisan demands. What is more, almost every other party in Northern Ireland wishes for exactly the same thing.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will try to resolve outside the Chamber some of the issues that I raised earlier on the Floor of the House. I am grateful to you, Sir, for giving me the time to expand on these issues in a way that is important for our consideration. It is important to press home not only the content of the Bill, but the issues that are pertinent to the current crisis, and, indeed, the resolve required to get to a better place in Northern Ireland.

Sylvia Hermon: It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I put on the record that I am absolutely delighted that, at long last, the Secretary of State has taken legal powers to herself, through this Bill this afternoon, to cut MLAs’ salaries. She has made it quite clear that she is not going to cut the staff allowances, with which I agree, but she must be decisive. She has been given the powers in this legislation, which will go through all its stages by the fast-track procedure, and she should not shy away from taking decisive decisions about cutting MLAs’ salaries. The fact that she has made it quite clear today that the £500 pay increase that was due to MLAs on 1 April will not go ahead is absolutely brilliant news. People in Northern Ireland will be thrilled and delighted by that, but she needs to go further.
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there was “clear public concern”—it was such a nice phrase—about MLAs being paid their full salary since the Assembly and the Executive collapsed 14 months ago. “Clear public concern” is a very pleasant way of describing what has been mentioned to me in the clearest terms of fury by my constituents and people beyond North Down. They have expressed their rage, disgust, anger and fury about MLAs receiving their full salary. Therefore, beyond announcing today that the £500 increase will not go ahead on 1 April, the Secretary of State must not dither any longer about using the powers that she will be given and entrusted with today to cut MLAs’ salaries.
Reference has been made time and again to “hard-working MLAs.” I do not detract from that—we do have hard-working MLAs—but let us just look at that title. MLAs are Members of a Legislative Assembly. They are supposed to be legislating and taking Executive decisions. They have not been doing that for 14 months.
The Assembly collapsed in January 2017. It was exceedingly good of Trevor Rainey, a very distinguished civil servant, to come out of retirement to do his independent report on salaries and allowances, reflecting the disrepute into which this issue has brought the Northern Ireland Assembly. Many people have expressed to me their view that, if this issue were not dealt with firmly, why on earth would we have a Northern Ireland Assembly? So the issue of MLAs’ salaries is corroding public confidence and public respect in the Assembly and I do not want to see that. I want to see the Assembly and the Executive restored for the betterment of all of our people in Northern Ireland. Although I do not wish to detract from those who have been described as hard-working MLAs, they are not doing the full range of functions for which they are receiving their full salary. If they are not legislating and not taking Executive decisions, they absolutely do not deserve to receive their full salaries.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I would be very interested in the hon. Lady’s opinion on two key matters under consideration. First, as the abbreviation MP means Member of Parliament, does she agree that those so-called Members of Parliament who do not take their seats and involve themselves in the legislative process should not be entitled to the allowances and payments that they currently receive? Secondly, she talks about the restoration of devolution, and the DUP agrees with her that it is important for the people of Northern Ireland. Does she have a view on the Irish language Act, and does she believe that Unionists should concede to it in order to get the Executive functioning again?

Sylvia Hermon: Let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s very helpful points one by one. In respect of Sinn Féin, if the right hon. Gentleman, as a sort of homework, cares to look—as I am sure he does—at the written questions that I have submitted, he will see a long line of questions to the Leader of the House asking that representative money to Sinn Féin be considered by this House. In my most recent written question to the Leader of the House, I asked her which parties she had consulted regarding the thousands and thousands of pounds of representative money that is paid to Sinn Féin. I was astounded, to put it mildly, when the reply came back that the Leader of the House had apparently had no discussions with any political parties about the reduction of representative money to Sinn Féin Members, who do not take their seats in this House. I would be delighted to join in common cause with the right hon. Gentleman on this issue so that we might, in fact, take it further because it is quite outrageous.
There are seven Sinn Féin Members of this House, who do not take their seats because of their political views. They receive representative money, which was invented—I stand to be corrected on this—in February 2006 by the then Prime Minister, and that irritates and grates on me, as an independent Member. As I am not a Member of a party, I receive no representative money, no additional Short money, and no additional secretarial and administrative allowances, even though I do take my seat and represent my people from North Down. It is a bone of contention about which I feel very strongly and which I would like the House to address so, yes, it is a good point for the right hon. Gentleman to raise.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me to address the issue of the Irish language Act, which is deeply divisive in Northern Ireland. However, I commend his party leader, Arlene Foster, who we know has made valiant efforts in this regard. We know this because the draft document, indicating the detailed discussions that have been taking place between Sinn Féin and the leadership of the DUP, was put into the public domain by some journalists, including Eamonn Mallie. This was very encouraging.
It is a great regret to me that the Irish language Act seems to have been the issue that brought everything tumbling down. It is divisive, but given the great good will from the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader and from the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland—although I am sure that the leader of Sinn Féin for all of the island will also have to be consulted and have her penny’s worth—I would like to think that the generosity and leadership that were definitely evidenced by the draft document could be evidenced again and that we  could get our Assembly up and running again. The Secretary of State would then not have to worry about explaining to the hon. Member for Belfast East whether this determination will come down immediately that the Executive are restored or whether it could be reinvented if the Assembly were to crash again. I do not want to prepare for the Assembly crashing again. I want the Assembly and the Executive up and running, so that this place does not have to take back powers. I hope that that answers the questions of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: It does.

Sylvia Hermon: In the meantime, the Secretary of State has been bold today. I encourage her to continue in that vein, and to be very bold in terms of following the excellent recommendations of Trevor Rainey, bearing in mind the disrepute into which the Assembly brings itself if MLAs continue to receive their full salary. That is not doing MLAs any good at all, despite their hard work.

Jim Shannon: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to conclude this debate from the Back Benches.
I often feel like someone who is stuck on a merry-go-round and cannot get off. We have an election and Members are elected. They take their seats. An issue with a governmental scheme is raised. The opportunity is taken to collapse the Assembly and a new election is called. People are elected again and refuse to take their seats, not because of a heating scheme or because of a failure to build trust but because of a militant, politicised Irish language Act—nothing more, nothing less. Hospitals in chaos, schools in turmoil, and roads in ruin: all because of a militant, politicised Irish language Act. There is no discussion of the RHI scheme, only of a militant Irish language Act.
Here we are today discussing the cutting of MLAs’ pay, and all because of—let’s all say it together—a militant Irish language Act. That is what this is about. We are not here to vote on giving the Secretary of State the ability to cut pay because the MLAs are incapable: quite the opposite; they are very, very capable. We have some of the most brilliant young minds, and bodies, trying to do the work but being prevented from doing so. I commend my colleagues Simon Hamilton, the former Economy Minister; Michelle McIlveen, the former Agriculture Minister; and Peter Weir, the former Education Minister. To be fair, we also have two other MLAs in my constituency: Mike Nesbitt from the Ulster Unionist party and Kellie Armstrong from the Alliance party. They all work extremely hard, but they are prevented from taking part in the Assembly.
When we were feeling the “beast from the east” in Northern Ireland, the girls in my office sent me pictures of them attempting to get in to work. An executive decision was then made by my parliamentary aide that the girls who had made it into the office could leave just before the amber warning took place at 3 pm to ensure that they were safe. I joked that I appreciated them using a half day’s annual leave to leave early. I did not mean it, of course—I just said it facetiously to give them a bit of a laugh. There was almost a revolution in the office, but that is by the by. The options were open  to me to penalise them, but obviously I was never going to do that because it would have been totally unfair. There is definitely a part of me which says that our MLAs, and those from all the other parties, are trying to do the work but being prevented from doing so, and it is unfair to penalise them for something out of their control. It would be easy to say that. However, returning to the office, if the girls were unable to come in for two days a week indefinitely, then I would obviously have to consider whether they would justify a full wage. Even though it was out of their control, I would have to come up with a new way of doing things. That is what this is all about.
I acknowledge that this is out of everyone’s hands—other than members of Sinn Féin, of course, whose only desire and aim is to break Northern Ireland and who do not care how this is achieved. Yet the consequence of these actions is that we must penalise all the MLAs. The constituency offices in my constituency are running at full speed. The MLAs are working extremely hard, as other Members of Parliament will confirm. I know that because I work very closely with my MLAs and the MLA team in order to handle the sheer volume of casework in the constituency that arises when there are no Ministers in place and no decisions taken by senior civil servants. There is no doubt in my mind that MLAs are continuing to work to the highest capacity that they can. I hear of them meeting constituency groups out of office hours, going above and beyond. They do that night and day. They are available Monday to Friday, and most weekends too, as requested, yet they are paid to legislate at the Assembly and are not doing so. We recognise that, and that is why we are here to make this decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made a considerable contribution to the debate and outlined the case that we all adhere to. It is with a heavy heart that I support the cutting of MLAs’ pay, because it is simply not fair. They want to do the work but are prevented from doing so. In the same way that, if a drunken youth throws a brick through your window and you have to pay for the repair even though you did not do it, it is not fair. This is one of those times when life is not fair.
When someone in other areas of work cannot come to do the job, they do not get paid for that day, and that is what will have to happen here. It is coming very close to that. I have a real fear that the longer this goes on, the more good young men and young women we may lose from our legislature. We have tremendous young talent in all parties in the Assembly who can do great things. We do not want to lose them from the political process for years. It concerns me as an MP, as I am sure it concerns other Members, that those people, with their breadth and depth of talent, could go and get a job elsewhere, and we could lose them forever from the political process, which would mean we have to start again.
Not getting a full wage may be okay for some people who have minimal costs, but for those who have full mortgages to pay and children to raise, a decision will be taken on whether they are better off in the paid job they had before trying to make a difference in the Assembly, with unsociable hours and massive pressure. That is the choice they made, and many will stand by that choice in the hope that decisions made in this place  will shortly enable a full Assembly to be up and running, or clarify what we can expect from people who have been elected to do a job, yet are being prevented from doing it.
The thing that galls me most is that those who are responsible for no agreement are not here today to defend their cause. Their bodies have never darkened these green Benches, but they have darkened the halls of the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East outlined clearly what benefits they have got out of that. They are never here to represent their people or their viewpoint, whatever that may be, and it is indefensible. They merrily continue to claim their expenses for not working in this place in Committees and so on like the rest of us, yet they have flights and so on paid. I am sorry, but at some stage, all of Northern Ireland has to stop paying the price for their intransigency, and we must move forward.
The Bill provides the power to cut MLAs’ salary. That must be done, and done soon. The people are tired of inaction. I am tired of inaction, and it is important to note that the MLAs are tired, too. They want to do their job and are prevented from doing so. We should not for one second think that they are enjoying working outside of the Assembly. For a start, they are not working a three-day week. They are still working full-time, in the daytime and in some cases the night-time.
Furthermore, there is nothing enjoyable about meeting constituents and being questioned and asked to help when it is not possible to give them the help they need. They are not enjoying being lambasted by people who are beyond frustrated—and understandably so. They are not enjoying seeing some things happen and other things not happen. If the Assembly were allowed to meet, they would be allowed to do their work on that. They are not enjoying being held to account for something they are not responsible for, but they are doing their job, which is, more importantly, their passion.
We should give credit to all MLAs who work so very hard to create a working Northern Ireland where our children can be educated and have job prospects and housing, safe within the Union of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The future of our nation is in the balance, and that is why most are pushing through and keep trying, despite the unbelievable frustration.
In conclusion, Sinn Féin do not want to play ball. We should end the game and allow the pitch to be used by those prepared and anxious to play. Some time in the very near future, we will have to look at a different political process. If they do not want to be part of that process, they should step outside it and let those parties that want to be part of the process take over, have a Government and move forward. We should send the message today that direct rule looms, and indeed it is starting to happen today through this process. When your constituents feel that they are unrepresented, Sinn Féin, that is all on you and your militant, politicised Irish language Act.

Nicholas Dakin: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has been performing in Westminster Hall during most of this debate—he always performs so well—and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) has  already spoken, it falls to me to give a brief response to this excellent debate. As my hon. Friend said earlier, we fully support what the Government are proposing, and I echo the views of the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
The hon. Member for Strangford said that this is being done with a heavy heart, but it is the right decision to cut MLAs’ salaries and we support it, and it is also the right decision not to cut the salaries of staff.

Shailesh Vara: I thank all Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate. While there has been some reluctance, there has clearly also been broad agreement that this is the right way forward.
Let me say at the outset that it remains our overriding priority—one that I know is shared by Members across the House—to see devolution restored. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the ongoing payment of full salaries to Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly is a matter of public concern. The Bill will allow us to address that by empowering the Secretary of State to make a determination to change pay and allowances in the current period, and to provide a safeguard against the present situation recurring.
I am grateful to the Members who have spoken, particularly the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). We often talk about Committee as the time when we undertake line-by-line scrutiny. In the hon. Gentleman’s case, the Secretary of State and I felt for a moment that we were in Committee, because his very sharp legal mind was going beyond line-by-line scrutiny to word-by-word scrutiny. That was certainly noted by all those present, but he clearly illustrated what a gain he is for this place and what a loss he is to the legal profession.

Gavin Robinson: Even if I was wrong?

Shailesh Vara: I was being charitable. The order of the day for this debate is very much that people should be brief—most were in line with that—and I will follow in that tradition.
We have taken advice on MLA pay and considered it, and we are now putting the Secretary of State in a position to act, pending any further representations from the Northern Ireland political parties. The previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), received and published Trevor Reaney’s advice in December, and the current Secretary of State has considered it very carefully.
We are now at a point where we simply cannot go on paying MLAs at their current full salary. As the Secretary of State made clear, we want to decide and finalise our approach by the end of this financial year. The measures in the Bill are necessary and proportionate in the interests of public finances, public services and public confidence in Northern Ireland, in the absence of a devolved Government. For those reasons, it is important that we are ready to act on MLA pay.
I stress again the Government’s commitment to the restoration of devolved government. That is our overriding priority, and the measures in the Bill do not undermine or contradict it, with powers remaining firmly in the devolved space. We will continue to support the Northern Ireland political parties and to work with the Irish Government towards resolving the differences that have stopped the parties reaching agreement. This Government are steadfast in their commitment to the Belfast agreement, and we will work tirelessly to see the devolved institutions restored. This Bill will allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to vary the pay and allowances of MLAs in the light of the lack of a sitting Assembly.
I am mindful of the fact that I do not want to detain the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) or prevent him from saying all he has to say in his Adjournment debate. I know that he has prepared a three-hour speech, which he will now have to cut because of the length of this debate. I am determined that he should be able to have his say, and on that basis, I urge that the Bill be read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Bill considered in Committee (Order, this day).
[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Defence

That the draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.

Electricity

That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Powers of Seizure) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.

Animals

That the draft Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

Rating and Valuation

That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention and Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.—(Julian Smith.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - MUSGROVE PARK HOSPITAL

Rebecca Pow: I rise to present a petition for a new surgical centre at Musgrove Park Hospital, supported by 6,100 people from Taunton Deane.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of Taunton Deane,
Declares that the current condition of some of Musgrove Park Hospital’s operating theatres are not up to the high standards expected in the NHS; further that the pre-1948 buildings that house the operating theatres, intensive treatment unit and high dependency unit are now outdated and are no longer fit for purpose; further that the hospital’s plans to build a new surgical centre in a more central location would complete the redevelopment of the surgical facilities and provide six new endoscopy rooms, eight operating theatres and a further twenty-two critical care beds; and further that the patients and staff at Musgrove Park Hospital deserve the very best facilities to enable them to maintain their outstanding rating for patient care.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the Petitioners in their efforts to raise the standards in Musgrove Park Hospital to build a new Surgical Centre.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P002122]

PETITION - SPEED LIMIT IN SPATHAM LANE, STREAT LANE AND UNDERHILL LANE, EAST SUSSEX

Maria Caulfield: I rise to present a petition, signed by over 1,500 people in my constituency, to ask for the lanes around the villages and parishes of Ditchling, Westmeston and Streat to be designated as quiet lanes, with reduced speed limits so that they are made safer for all road users. The petition was initiated after the terrible accident of horse rider Beverley Berrill in Spatham Lane just a few months ago, which left her severely injured; tragically, her horse had to be destroyed. The petition asks for Spatham Lane, Underhill Lane and Streat Lane to be considered for designation as quiet lanes as a starting point for making all the country lanes in the constituency of Lewes safer for all road users.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the current national speed limit in use on Spatham Lane, Streat Lane and Underhill Lane in the County of East Sussex is unsuitable as it is a danger to other users of the lanes, notably equestrians; further that the Petition follows an incident that took place on Spatham Lane during September 2017 whereby a car collided with resident of Ditchling Mrs Beverley Berrill, who was on horseback; further that the accident resulted in the temporary hospitalisation of Mrs Berrill and the termination of the horse; and further that the incident has resulted in distress for local equestrians who wish to exercise their use of the local lanes in safety.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reclassify said roads as quiet lanes, or alternatively reduce the speed limit of the said lanes from its current national speed limit classification, to ensure greater safety for equestrians and other users of the lanes.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002123]

PETITION - ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND CLOSURE

Drew Hendry: I rise to present a petition collected from the people of the town of Nairn, concerned at the closure of their Royal Bank of Scotland branch.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey,
Declares that proposed closure of the 4 branches of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland in the areas of Grantown, Nairn, Aviemore and Inverness will have a detrimental effect on local communities and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of these branches.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002125]

Birmingham Commonwealth Games and Shooting

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been almost a year since I have had a personal Adjournment debate, but it has only been 24 hours since I was involved in one. This has been the week of the three Jims—Jim Fitzpatrick on Monday night, Jim McMahon last night and Jim Shannon tonight.

Lindsay Hoyle: One might argue that it is Jim Shannon day today, as you are on your third speech.

Jim Shannon: My speechwriter is exhausted.
I have been seeking this debate for eight or nine weeks, and I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place. We are all very fond of her and grateful for the work that she does. She was a guest speaker at my association’s dinner in Strangford some time ago, and she had a chance to meet the Comber Rec women’s football team, which I know she enjoyed—my team enjoyed it, too. We look to the Minister for some guidance tonight on how we can take this forward. I have some suggestions that I hope might be effective.
I want to put on record my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing this issue to be aired, and I am glad to see many hon. Members in the Chamber to support it—I hope. They may just want to make an intervention to get their own back—[Laughter.]
Coming from Northern Ireland and with a neighbouring constituency whose Member refuses to take his seat, I am used to taking on issues that have an effect more widely than Strangford. Birmingham is slightly further than I usually stretch, but I am concerned about the issue of the Commonwealth games 2022, and I believe that other hon. Members here tonight are also concerned about it. It is not about Birmingham per se, but about the recognition of shooting sports and the fact that that entire category has been removed from the games without appropriate foundation.
I put on record that I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and of the Countryside Alliance, and have been for more years than I care to remember. I am also a member of several shooting clubs, and I served in the Army, which gave me a chance to shoot weapons legally.
The proposed sports programme for the Commonwealth games 2022 in Birmingham does not include any of the shooting sports. There is a large petition on this. A number of right hon. and hon. Members are here to put that on the record, because it is important. I hail from Northern Ireland, and there are those who say that we are too familiar with guns, but this is not an issue of gun control. It is an issue of sport—a sport at which I believe we are pretty good. Some might ask, why do the people of Northern Ireland excel in boxing and shooting? It is a hard one to answer.

Tracey Crouch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Shannon: Yes.

Tracey Crouch: In part, I wanted to do that just to know what it feels like to intervene on the master of interventions, but I do have a serious intervention on his point about the success of shooting in Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating veteran shooter David Calvert, who, having first competed in Edmonton in 1978, has been selected for his 11th Commonwealth games? Having won eight medals in that time, including four golds, he has inevitably inspired many others to compete in Commonwealth and Olympic games.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for taking the opportunity to intervene on me—I quite enjoyed that. I also say how pleased I am that David Calvert is a member of Comber rifle club in my constituency. I have met him on a number of occasions, and he has been the most successful shooter for Northern Ireland.

Gavin Robinson: I am glad that the Minister mentioned David Calvert. I was a member of Comber rifle club when I was about 12 or 13. I remember him coming and showing us his gold medal for Kuala Lumpur, and I remember just how inspiring that was for young kids such as me who were involved in target shooting, who wanted to progress and who wanted to do well. If shooting is not in the Commonwealth games, that inspiration for young target shooters will not be there in future. Perhaps my hon. Friend could reflect on that.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that up. I will not go far down memory lane, because I go down memory lane further than most, but the fact is that my introduction to shooting and target sports was as a young boy of about 10 years old in the ’60s—the late ’60s, I have to say, because that gives me a couple of extra years. My cousin Kenneth Smyth—hon. Friends will know that he was murdered by the IRA—was always an inspiration to me, and I particularly value the time that he spent with us as young boys, introducing us to shooting. Whenever we went down to our grandmother’s and ultimately to meet Kenneth, the highlight of that holiday for us was the .22 rifle and shooting at targets down on the farm. In those days, restrictions were a lot less rigorous than they are today, and the fact was that we were able to do that. That was our introduction to the sport. My hon. Friend said that he was introduced to it as a 12-year-old at Comber rifle club. That is very important as well.

Mark Garnier: May I also say how much I enjoy the opportunity of being able to intervene back on the hon. Gentleman after all the times that he has intervened on me? He raises a really interesting point about youngsters shooting. A lot of people turn around and say, “Isn’t this abhorrent? You can’t have youngsters shooting,” but actually, I was taught how to shoot at a very early age. One of the great things about teaching children how to shoot is that they learn an incredible amount of discipline and an incredible amount of respect for each other and for sport. We end up with very responsible young adults coming out as a result of all the discipline and camaraderie that we get around shooting sports.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for saying that. He is absolutely right. The introduction to shooting sports at a very early age puts a discipline in place and an interest. I will talk later about my boys and my children and the opportunities that we have had. My son Jamie and I shoot together. I took him shooting from a very early age, and he is a much better shot than I am, by miles. My granddaughter Katie—she is the third generation—is also interested in shooting. I see the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) across the Chamber on the front row—he takes his son with him when he goes shooting. I know how important it is for someone to have that relationship with their child and to have the chance to introduce a fantastic sport that can do so much. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for that intervention; it is exactly one of the points I wanted to make.
A joke often touted in my local shooting club, where I am a member, is that they have asked for a couple of my election posters for target practice. I never would say no if they wanted to do that. There were other election posters, but obviously I was in no position to offer any other than my own, so mine were used—I was just happy they were used and recycled in some way.
My local shooting club hosts a very successful event called “the Swaziland cup” at which amateurs and the more professional come together to win the cups and in the meantime raise hundreds and thousands of pounds for the children of Swaziland. The club also hosts the little choir when they come for an afternoon of safe fun and good food. We do it every year they come. I have never won the Swaziland cup, by the way, but there is always next year. That is how it works. It is the same with fishing: I have not caught that big fish yet, but I am going to catch it next year. That is how it goes.

Paul Girvan: The sport of shooting in my area is great. We have a rifle club not half a mile from where I live, and the young people who go along learn not only discipline but a great sense of camaraderie that they carry with them for the rest of their lives. It would be a retrograde step if they had not something to aim at—excuse the pun. Let us be honest: they get involved to improve and expand the sport and to take part in competitions—and what greater competition is there than the Commonwealth games? It is something they should be encouraged to attain to—something we should be inspiring them to achieve—so it would be a retrograde step to remove shooting from the Commonwealth games.

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend, like others, reinforces what we all know: the introduction of the sport of shooting to young people from an early age develops character, friendships and accuracy—and, of course, we hope that some will attain perhaps even a Commonwealth medal.

David Linden: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has two hours before the House has to adjourn, given the number of interventions. On a serious point, however, I must note how many people are here for his Adjournment debate. I do not think that any other Member is held in the affection and warmth that we feel for him. I speak as a Glasgow MP. Obviously, we had the 2014 Commonwealth games, and we had shooting—not in the east end of Glasgow, but  at Barry Buddon—and I commend his remarks tonight. We must make sure that this is not a retrograde step and that we see shooting at the Commonwealth games in Birmingham.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I am just pleased to see a goodly crowd here to support an important issue and a sport at which we excel.
Target shooting has a real place in our community, and the skills of those who play deserve recognition. This is a sport in which we are recognised. The connotations of gun violence must be removed from this discussion, because these are legitimate, law-abiding, licence-holding people who have the opportunity to shoot. Those who wish to use a gun for nefarious reasons are not target shooters; they do not follow the rigorous legalities that come with owning and shooting a gun; they are the ones who buy through the back door, instead of coming with a licence through the front door, and that should be said at the outset.
I wish to thank all those organisations and individuals who contacted me and sent me information on this subject, including the Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the sports societies. The following information was provided by the British Shooting, which covers a range of shooting sports and offers varying levels of support and expertise. I spoke to the Minister before the debate to say I believed there was something we could do, and I look to her now with genuine hope that she will take this in the direction we want. The following are the facts of the case: the 2022 games were originally awarded to Durban, South Africa, with a sports programme that embraced all the shooting sports—shotgun, rifle and pistol, airgun and full-bore rifle. The Durban organising committee was unable to obtain satisfactory financial guarantees from the South African Government, however, and unfortunately had no option other than to relinquish responsibility for the games.
The Commonwealth Games Federation sought alternative hosts, and a bidding process was opened. In England, the cities of Birmingham and Liverpool put forward outline bids. The Liverpool bid included shooting, after constructive dialogue with British Shooting and others. Birmingham’s bid team did not engage with British Shooting or, it appears, any other shooting body—that was very disappointing, and I do not think the procedure was followed correctly—and did not include shooting in its bid. It should have done so. The Birmingham bid was put forward to the CGF, and it was ultimately awarded the right to host the games.

Julian Lewis: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate, and I am very concerned by the suggestion that there may have been an ulterior motive behind the exclusion of shooting from the Commonwealth games on this occasion that is being dressed up as a logistical problem—the problem that Bisley is too far away from the location. Has the hon. Gentleman any specific indication that the people who are hosting the games this time are in some way ideologically opposed to target shooting?

Jim Shannon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am always very wary about what I say, and I would  rather put the facts of the case and let the right hon. Gentleman draw his own conclusions, but yes, some people would say that that is something that may be lingering in the background. When the Commonwealth games took place in Manchester, Bisley was used as a location. Why not use it this time, given that it is closer to Birmingham than to Manchester? That seems perfectly logical to me.
I am very pleased that Birmingham’s bid was successful, and, indeed, I supported it. By extension, it has benefited the whole United Kingdom. The Commonwealth games should benefit everyone, not just those in one particular place. To host games of this calibre is a feather in our cap, and well worth the money that it entails. I welcome Birmingham’s contribution and its efforts. In normal circumstances, however, the decision to award the games to a host city and a Commonwealth games association is made at a CGF general assembly, even when there is only one bidder. That usually takes place some seven years before the games.
Following the late withdrawal of South Africa, the CGF executive dealt directly with the decision to find a replacement, which meant that Birmingham’s bid and, significantly, its proposed sports programme were not subject to debate by the 72 member nations of the CGF that would be normal practice. I suggest that in this case normal practice was not followed and that it should have been. What I am asking, in so far as it is within the remit of the Minister’s responsibilities, is for that normal procedure to be followed.

Mark Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being incredibly generous with his time.
I must declare an interest as a member of the National Rifle Association and the Rifle Club at Bisley. It seems to me that it would be perfectly simple for the shooting sports to take place at the National Shooting Centre there, not only because it is available but because that would provide a very good income for the National Rifle Association. Is the hon. Gentleman surprised as I am that the association is not pushing as hard as it can to ensure that we have shooting sports in the Commonwealth games? If it is not pushing as hard as it can, why not?

Jim Shannon: That question is in my mind as well. Why not? I believe that there are now many thousands of signatures on the petition. I hope that the CGF is listening to the grassroots, because they are saying, “Are we all swimmers? Are we all runners? Some of us are shooters, and we will not feature in the Commonwealth games.” I will not, certainly—but these are our games, and we want to see opportunities for all disciplines to feature there. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: that should happen, and the grassroots support for it is very clear.

Drew Hendry: I, too, should declare an interest. My nephew Joe Hendry will represent Scotland in the wrestling in the Gold Coast Commonwealth games next month. I am sure that Members will join me in congratulating him and wishing him well.
The hon. Gentleman is advancing a compelling argument about the need for continuity in sports. Young people taking part in sports need to know that there will be a future in the work that they are putting in. That should apply to all disciplines, including shooting.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is the first time he has intervened on me, but I have lost count of the number of times I have intervened on him. I thank him for attending the debate, and he is right that going to the Gold Coast games is a tremendous achievement. Wee Amy Foster from my constituency has just been notified that she has qualified for those games as well, so I know how important that is, and how important it is to encourage young people to do these things.

Chris Davies: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Those of us representing Welsh constituencies share his great disappointment that shooting will not be taking place at the 2022 Commonwealth games. Do you agree that perhaps the UK Government could take the lead and organise a similar international competition somewhere else in the country?

Eleanor Laing: Order. As this is an Adjournment debate with several Members present, I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to address that remark to me rather than to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Chris Davies: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and what he says is absolutely right. I look forward to the Minister perhaps being able to exert influence in places we do not seem to be able to, to see whether that can happen.
In 2015, the CGF general assembly in Auckland approved a new strategic agenda, “Transformation 2022”. Approval of this general direction embraced, by default, much detail, including changes to the list of so-called compulsory sports as well as the overall quota of athlete places in the games. Shooting remained an optional sport, while many others attained compulsory status. It should be noted that the consequence of the decision did not have an impact upon the Durban bid, which included all shooting sports. Again, I suggest that that omission—or whatever it might be—needs to be looked at.
Shooting sports have been omitted from the games on only one occasion, in 1970. On other occasions, when shooting sports have presented logistical challenges to host cities they were addressed, particularly in England in 2002, when the option of Bisley was agreed upon even though the games were hosted by Manchester. As I have said before, I have had the privilege—at least once in my life, in any case—to shoot at Bisley, with the Army back in the ’80s, and I greatly enjoyed that experience. We were never going to win the encounter, by the way. It was like reaching the FA cup final: getting to the final was our big occasion, so we were very pleased to be there, even though we knew we were going to get walloped—and we were.

Julian Lewis: I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Bisley every year with the Commons rifle team, where we have the privilege of shooting against the Lords team. In passing, may I pay tribute to a now retired member of the House of Commons staff, Mr Gary Howard, who worked in the Vote Office for many years? For a long period he gave freely of his lunchtimes—week in, week out, and month in, month out—to tutor Members of both Houses of Parliament in shooting skills and was rightly rewarded with the British empire medal when he retired for his long service in the House, his service to shooting, and his service to young people.

Jim Shannon: When my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and I were elected in 2010 we joined the House of Commons rifle club; we really enjoyed getting the badge, to tell the truth, because we wanted to show everybody we were in it. We particularly enjoyed going down and shooting at lunchtimes, and I suspect that many other Members have also enjoyed those lunchtime engagements.
As I have said, in the Manchester games Bisley was a venue, and it can be again. Shooting is a traditional Commonwealth sport, and for many of the smaller Commonwealth nations shooting sports are among the very few sports in the programme that they can realistically select athletes for and therefore play a part in the games. Some of the countries that excel at shooting sports perhaps do not excel at any other sports, and I will name some of them, as I think that is important: Jersey, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Guyana, Norfolk Island and the Falkland Islands. Shooting sports are crucial to their meaningful participation in the games, and to their way of life as well.
For larger nations such as India, Malaysia and Australia, the absence of shooting sports has a major impact on their team size and their medal winning. Closer to home, the teams of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all regularly secure a significant medal haul from the sport. Information I received from the Countryside Alliance states:
“Shooting contributed 15 medals to England’s medal tally at the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, and England has won a total of 168 shooting medals in all previous Commonwealth Games—more than any other competing nation and over 20 per cent of the medals available.”
That is even more than Northern Ireland!

Mark Garnier: Further to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the hon. Gentleman is very welcome to come along to the match between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I am the captain of our team.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the contribution of the smaller Commonwealth countries, but he has missed an important point about shooting sports. We need to remember that this is the one sport in which men and women compete equally against each other. We have just had International Women’s Day, and it is really important that we should not be getting rid of sports in which there is no gender discrimination. We should be celebrating this sport.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
The 2018 Commonwealth games in the Gold Coast, Australia, which were mentioned earlier, will include four shooting disciplines: full bore, pistol, rifle and shotgun. The shooting programme will be held at the Belmont shooting centre in Brisbane, where 20 athletes from Team England—the mother country—will compete in 19 separate events. There needs to be a commitment not only for Birmingham in 2022; I am seeking a commitment from the Commonwealth Games Federation to include shooting in the 2026 games. We need to look forward and ensure that what has happened this time does not happen again. The Minister referred to David Calvert in her intervention. He will shortly be competing in Brisbane, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East was inspired by him many years ago. I am sure that many other young boys and girls were inspired by him as well. That is why I am raising this issue today.
Two key international bodies oversee the shooting sports that appear in the Commonwealth games: the International Shooting Sport Federation and the International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations. Both have indicated a willingness to work with the CGF to find a solution to keep shooting sports in the games and on the 2022 programme. Both are willing to do more than most, and representatives met the CGF president in February this year. This is about finding solutions. When people come to me with problems, it is not about the problem; it is about the solution. We bring the issue to the Floor of the House to seek a solution, and we hope that that solution will be forthcoming. At Olympic level, the ISSF represents a category C sport, recognising its growing and significant contribution to the Olympic ideals and family.
Having four disciplines, shooting sports can be delivered flexibly, both in terms of which disciplines appear and in terms of location. The preferred position is, naturally, to embrace all four disciplines, and I would encourage that. That option could be delivered at Bisley, as was the case for the successful hosting of the 2002 Manchester games. Bisley has the capacity to do that. It is not unusual for some sports to be outsourced remotely in that way, with examples including shooting in Malaysia in 1998, shooting in Manchester in 2002, shooting in Glasgow in 2014 and track cycling and shooting in Brisbane in 2018. All those events involved shooting, yet we have a big void at the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth games. As London’s Olympic and Paralympic games and Glasgow’s Commonwealth games all showed, the UK is the world leader in providing low-cost temporary facilities to ISSF standards. It can be done, and it should be done; there are many out there who want it to happen. Equally, some shooting sports could be accommodated easily in Birmingham in the many existing arenas that the city is home to. I encourage the sporting authorities to consider that.
I have been reliably informed that the ISSF, the ICFRA and British Shooting are all willing, ready and able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the CGF and the host city to accommodate the sport in the 2022 games. Many organisations, individuals and right hon. and hon. Members are keen to add their support. I urge that the matter be considered and acted upon while we have the time to do so, and I look to the Minister to bring that about.
I did not intend to speak for the full two hours, and I am sure that everyone in the House is thinking, “Thank the Lord for that”. I will conclude with this point.  My granddaughter Katie is nine years old, and I took my son Jamie shooting when he was younger than that and introduced him to a sport in which he is now fairly proficient and much better than his dad. My granddaughter Katie has started to go hunting with her dad and me. It is a family tradition, and if the tradition continues, perhaps the child will better the father. My son is a better shot than me, and perhaps my granddaughter will be a better shot than my son.

Julian Lewis: This is positively the last intervention that I will make on the hon. Gentleman. In support of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) about the sport being gender-neutral, I should have declared an interest as the president of the Colbury rifle and pistol club in the New Forest, where the champion shooter is a young lady called Molly. I think she is still in her teens, and she has on more than one occasion shot 100 out of 100, something I have never managed to do and I fear I never will manage to do.

Jim Shannon: There is still hope—you just never know—but I think my days of shooting as accurately as that are a long time gone. We have a couple of young ladies at the Comber Rifle Club, and both are holding their own at that level against the men, which is good stuff.

Chris Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous with his time and letting me intervene yet again—I shall try to conform to the rules this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard a lot about male and female shooters and about young shooters, but we have not heard so much about those at the other end of the scale. A former constituent of Brecon and Radnorshire, the late Lord Swansea, won gold medals at both the Olympic and Commonwealth games at the grand old age of, well, his late 60s and early 70s, so shooting is open to everyone.

Jim Shannon: As I said, there is hope for everyone, and I think everyone has been covered now. Thinking of the Gold Coast games, it is significant that there is opportunity for disabled people. I know from my time as a shooter over a vast number of years that even those who are visually disabled or in a wheelchair can still excel, win and beat the able-bodied.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: My hon. Friend spoke passionately about his granddaughter Katie pursuing shooting as a sport, perhaps in competition. He may be aware that when the Commonwealth games fell through for Durban there was some talk that Northern Ireland might make a bid to host the games, perhaps supported by our neighbours in the Irish Republic. Of course, they have not yet rejoined the Commonwealth, but we look forward to the day. Does my hon. Friend join me in aspiring to the day when his granddaughter will shoot for Northern Ireland as Northern Ireland hosts the Commonwealth games for the first time?

Jim Shannon: Yes, absolutely. I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It may be aspirational, but it is something that we would all love. We always love to see our sons and daughters doing well, and we want to see our  grandchildren do well. I want to see Katie beating her dad at shooting, and hopefully that will happen. I have no doubt that she would beat her grandfather every day, but I hope that she will beat her dad, too. I hope that Katie will be some shooter in the years to come, and I would love her to be a member of Team GB or of the Northern Ireland team at the Commonwealth games. We would also love to see the Republic of Ireland come back into the Commonwealth. That may be a bit aspirational and not terribly likely, but that does not stop us thinking about it and wishing for it to happen. The Commonwealth games will not become be representative of our own wee Northern Ireland if games without shooting become the norm. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said, it should never be the case that we opt out of shooting when hosting the games.
We hosted Olympic shooting, and will do so again at the first opportunity. What an outcry there would be if there were no athletics—no long jump or high jump—or swimming. I believe that there should be an outcry out of concern about shooting sports. Let us do what we can and secure the sport for the future gold medallists among us—perhaps not us, but our families—and provide shooting in Birmingham in 2022. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) said, at the age of 68, you never know what you will do.

Tracey Crouch: I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing this important debate. I am grateful, too, for the contributions from colleagues, especially those who mentioned their fantastic shooting clubs. The Whip has asked me to mention that he, too, has a fantastic shooting club—Kelbrook shooting lodge in Pendle—which, I am sure, inspires many youngsters in his community and, indeed, older generations to become involved in shooting.
The hon. Member for Strangford is passionate about this issue from a personal, local and national perspective and I think that his speech has reinforced that view beyond the Chamber. I would like to wish our home nation shooting squads the best of luck at the Gold Coast games starting in 13 days, 16 hours and 33 minutes. Across the United Kingdom, we should be proud of our teams heading to Australia, and I know that they will do their best to succeed and to bring back gold, silver and bronze to showcase their respective nations.
Northern Ireland is sending 88 athletes and has a good record at the Commonwealth games. I hope that after a heavy day of discussion on legislative issues this debate will provide an opportunity to mention the positive power of sport and the inspiration it brings to many people, young and old, beyond the challenge of politics. Fast-forwarding to the 2022 Commonwealth games in Birmingham, we all welcome the positive opportunities that hosting an event such as the games can bring to Birmingham and the UK as a whole. The games will showcase Britain to the rest of the world, providing new economic growth and trade opportunities to the west midlands and beyond. In addition, the games will leave a legacy of new and refurbished sports facilities in Birmingham and the west midlands, including a fully refurbished Alexander athletics stadium and a brand new aquatics centre in Sandwell.
The Government have been working closely with its partners, Birmingham City Council, Commonwealth Games England and the Commonwealth Games Federation to begin plans for delivering a unique and exciting games in 2022. The appointment process for the chair of the organising committee was launched last week, and plans to deliver an amazing handover ceremony at the end of the 2018 Gold Coast games are also under way. We hope that, with the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting around the corner, the handover ceremony will be a great opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to the Commonwealth movement and to show the world what Birmingham has to offer.
Hosting the Commonwealth games is no small undertaking and a number of important decisions need be taken to ensure that the city of Birmingham delivers the best games possible. One of these decisions is the sports programme for the event. The programme proposed by the Birmingham 2022 bid team and approved by the Commonwealth Games Federation is now being put into action. I should explain that, when bidding to host the Commonwealth games, a bidding city is required to develop a sports programme within the technical requirements set by the Commonwealth Games Federation, which requires all host cities to include a number of prescribed core sports and then select additional sports from a list of optional sports.
Shooting is, and always has been, an optional sport, and that status was reaffirmed by the Commonwealth Games Federation general assembly in 2015. That motion was voted on by the federation’s members, in line with its constitution, and it is not a decision with which any Government can, or should, interfere. So the first thing to say is shooting was considered for potential inclusion in the Birmingham 2022 programme under the optional sport banner.
A number of other considerations have to be taken into account when developing a sports programme that best meets the needs of Birmingham 2022. For example, a fixed quota of athletes must be complied with. So it is not simply the case that all sports could be included, even if this were feasible. In addition, Birmingham was awarded the Commonwealth games with just four and a half years in which to deliver it, rather than the usual seven.
I have no doubt that the city will deliver an outstanding event, despite the timeframe, but this does mean a number of additional practical considerations must be taken into account, including what sports facilities exist across the UK, their proximity to Birmingham and the west midlands and the level of financial investment required to make them suitable to host the games within the timescale available. The city also considered its wider objectives of showcasing high-quality competition, gender equality in medal events, and a strong and developing para-sport programme. In balancing all those considerations, the decision was taken not to include shooting in the 2022 Commonwealth games bid. Rather, the optional sports and disciplines submitted as part of the bid instead include three-on-three basketball and three-on-three para-basketball; track cycling and para-track cycling; mountain biking; diving; rhythmic gymnastics; and para-triathlon.
I am sure the whole House would agree that this combination of optional sports will complement an exciting and inclusive programme. If all of the other factors I have outlined did not apply, we would of  course like to include a full spectrum of sports and disciplines. However, the important considerations relating to the size, scope, scale and deliverability of the games meant that Birmingham had to make difficult decisions. I understand the disappointment that many, including colleagues in this House and, especially, the athletes, will feel with this decision, but it is one that the Commonwealth Games Federation accepted the bid on.
The decision not to include shooting in 2022 should not be considered a reflection of the importance of the sport. After success in Rio and the trajectory of success across global competitions, UK Sport is providing £6.9 million of funding for the Tokyo 2020 shooting performance cycle—

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Tracey Crouch: I think the PARLY app would explode if I did not.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for giving way. I was trying to be helpful in asking for a copy of my speech to be sent to her Department before this debate and I hope that was done. The International Shooting Sport Federation and the International Confederation of Fullbore Rifle Associations have indicated a willingness to work with the CGF to find a solution in order to keep shooting sports in the games and in the 2022 games programme. In February, so no more than a few weeks ago, they met the CGF president, and at an Olympic level they have been to see all these different people who they think they can influence. What I am really saying, if you do not mind my intervention being a little long, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that many people wish to make this happen. I am asking the Minister to use her efforts to see whether this is possible, ever mindful of the fact that Bisley wants to make its facilities available. As Manchester did it in 2002, I do not see why Birmingham cannot use Bisley, if it is made available and if all those organisations want to make this happen.

Tracey Crouch: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, which gives me the opportunity to re-emphasise and make clearer the point I made: Birmingham put in a bid to the CGF with its optional sports programme and shooting was not in it, and the CGF accepted the bid without shooting in the programme. My fear is that, if the CGF and Birmingham were to change that, it would challenge the bid that has already been accepted. But I am sure that officials and the Birmingham team have heard that intervention. They will certainly have heard the passion that he and other colleagues have spoken about on the issue of shooting. Let me reiterate that we certainly recognise the importance of shooting. As I was saying, UK Sport is continuing to provide millions of pounds for both the Tokyo 2020 shooting performance cycle and for the para-shooting in Tokyo.
The hon. Member for Strangford is a reasonable man. He will appreciate the technical rationale behind the difficult decision that Birmingham took as part of its bid process and appreciate that that bid was accepted by the CGF. I am always happy to discuss these issues with him further and to keep him in the loop in respect of the conversations with the federation and the international organisations. I am just not in the position to be able to say whether anything can change at this point.

Chris Davies: The Minister has acknowledged that the athletes will be disappointed that shooting is not happening at the 2022 games. Will she commit the Government to supporting British shooting beyond the Olympic games and show that they are prepared to support British shooting into eternity?

Tracey Crouch: I assure my hon. Friend that UK Sport continues to invest funding into elite-level shooting sports and that there will be funding for the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic cycle. That investment will continue. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position about the period beyond that. The decisions for beyond Tokyo 2020 will come in the run-up to 2020; there is always an eight-year funding cycle for elite sport.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister and the Government reconsider the funding of the shooting part of the games, if that is part of the issue, and be ever mindful that Bisley wants to make its grounds available? I gently remind her that I referred in my speech to how the process for Birmingham was arrived at. I suggested that it did not follow normal practice. Let me mention what normal practice would be. When Durban was declared not to be available, Birmingham made its bid. The CGF executive dealt directly with the decision to find a replacement, such that Birmingham’s bid and, significantly, its proposed sports programme was not subject to debate by any of the 72 nations. I suggest that the process that should have been followed was not followed. With that in mind, I think it should be reviewed.

Tracey Crouch: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, although the CGF worked on an expedited timetable, it certainly followed the process that it needed to follow, and Birmingham was the successful bid and was awarded the games. I recognise that he, other Members and athletes are disappointed that shooting will not be in the 2022 programme, but re-emphasise that that is no reflection of what we all think about the success of shooting. I shall continue to listen to the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues to make sure that these opinions are shared with the CGF and others.

Gavin Robinson: rose—

Tracey Crouch: I shall take one last intervention.

Gavin Robinson: To build on the question in my hon. Friend’s last intervention, given that there is a desire to encourage greater participation and that the Minister has obviously indicated the willingness of Government to support shooting more generally, would the Government welcome a bid from the shooting fraternity in the UK to organise an international competition that could run alongside, or coincide with the timetable of the Commonwealth games?

Tracey Crouch: We look at all bids from international sports and put them alongside other event strategy decisions. If there were a bid, we would pay attention to it in the same way that we do when we make decisions on lots of other bids. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to support many bids from Northern Ireland for whole island international sporting competitions.

Gavin Newlands: rose—

Tracey Crouch: No, I will not give way again. [Hon. Members: “Ahh.”] The hon. Gentleman had his chance much earlier on, before I got to the last sentence of my speech.
I recognise the disappointment that Members around the Chamber are feeling right now, but I do hope that the whole House will join me in wishing the hundreds of athletes representing the home nations the very best of luck at the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games and will offer Birmingham continued support in its preparations for 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.